> I can't change those standards with the flick of a switch.

Long term project of bodily acceptance ahoy! Work on this slowly, don't beat yourself up for having bad days or wanting to make longer term changes, but try and think positively about what you've got. An important part of the project can be to try and give yourself positive affirmations and override negative self descriptors in your internal narrative, over time this can help even if at first it feels like you're just sort of faking it. This doesn't mean you have to like where you are, but trying to soften words like hate, or ideas like never being happy if you can't blend in immediately. You don't have to aim for happy, but aiming for unhappy but accepting and working towards changes can be a big shift.

> things aren't going my way right now and I'm at a last-ditch point where it's pass or give up on ever being happy. I know how I feel. People keep telling me how to feel but I can't just decide to be happy as I am.

Look you don't have to be happy as you are, but you have to try and accept how things are at the minute while working to change what can be changed. This is a long slow process and it sucks. Things will get better as transition goes on, but it'll take time and effort and the bit before then is going to grind and fucking suck.

Breasts: padded bras and home made breast forms are better than nothing. Go smaller rather than bigger, just something there to break up the outline of your body will do.

Clothes: two layers of not like painfully tight but snug underwear (optionally like leggings or whatever over the top as well), google search to learn the mystic arts of tucking, but TL;DR gently move testicles up/in, tuck penis down back, use underwear to hold in place, wear baggy trousers, multiple layers of skirt (look okay when I do skirts I'm into underskirts in addition).

Hair: Neaten up at hairdressers, use good shampoo/conditioning.

What am I forgetting:

• Hormones really really help, make sure you register with a new GP when you're at Uni - and get them to chase your referrals to your GIC to keep that going. For many of us blending without hormones just sucks balls and isn't going to happen, they can make the world of difference to us physically with changes, but also with mental changes. If you can afford to do so you can go private, you're UK based so see /r/transgenderUK for details on your options (one online doc, two places in London, self medding as a last resort).
  
  
• Hair removal: Costs money but can be a good investment, theoretically the NHS will give you like 6 sessions of laser, when you've battled your way through the GICs. In the mean time if you can scrape the cash for even one or two it can really lessen your facial hair by a huge margin and make everything easier. IPL is not laser, it'll stun hair but it'll come back shortly.
  
  
• Voice is also totally a thing, look into ways of practicing and start now, try /r/transvoice and threads here.
  
  
• Shaving: Look into a good razor (double edged razors and good shaving soap/cream is a good investment that up front will cost you more but will save you in the long run as well as giving you a better shave, look into /r/wicked_edge and places). You may also want to look into an epilator for doing body hair. It'll hurt (oh how it'll hurt) but its kick arse.
  
  
• Make up: Look into stuff to help conceal beard shadow (orange tone concealers) and layer foundation on top. Go for understated rather than overstated.
  
  
• Good literature: Whipping Girl, The Empire Strikes Back, Natalie Reed, Zinnia Jones, collections like Nobody Passes - you can get a lot of this stuff free online or via your University Library. Good fierce shit that helps you feel positive about yourself. Know your history, know your rights. You don't have to be a shouty, out type - but just knowing this shit and having confidence in yourself and feeling awesome about being awesome can really help.
  
  
• You time: Meditation, yoga, exercise - make your body your own, connect with it if you can stand too. If you can't carefully balanced and careful disconnecting from it can make getting through tough days easier, but that's easier if you can control how to reconnect later.
  
  
• Supportive Friends: Look into your Uni and see if they have an LGBTQ group/support structure, go along and see if you mesh with these people, if so they can be a good source of support. Failing that find cool people to hang out with, make friends with those who share your interests, having a good support structure of friends can make all the difference.
  
  
  Good luck, may the force be with you. Oh enjoy your studies as well :)

There are a few core psychological drives that compel men to do what they do. In no particular order:

Sex, obviously. Sexual dimorphism results in males on average having stronger libidos than women of similar demographic. Year+ dry-spells often lead men to suicide ideation.

Female companionship Ties in closely with sex, but is moreso the emotional connection component. Sex alone isn't enough to satisfy men's psychological needs; a supportive and loving partner is necessary. But on the flipside, a supportive female companion but lack of sex is also insufficient for healthy psychological functioning. Case study: /r/deadbedrooms

Male companionship Men generally seek esteem and reputation among their peers. For reference, the feeling a man gets when his fellow men look to him for leadership or admire his skills is similarly emotionally pleasurable as sexual release or close romantic moments. It's a very different type of emotional gratification, but is on a similar level of pleasurable intensity. This is what fuels male competitiveness.

Competence Along with social gratification from other males, men need to convince themselves of their own competence. A man that does not believe in himself is not psychologically healthy, regardless of how others view him.

Independence For most men, there is no greater disgrace than being a burden to others. Case study: chronic unemployment or underemployment is strongly correlated to suicide.

Purpose Ties in a good bit with male companionship and independence. Men want a cause. I know that personally, I feel much more driven, dilligent, and psychologically healthy when I know people are counting on me. I'd postulate than a cultural "lack of feeling of purpose" has contributed to increasing suicide rates as well. I'd also postulate that desire for purpose leads many men to military service or radical social movements. (Case study: Disaffected European men joinging ISIS)

There's a comment I read a while back about the "male romantic fantasy" which is incredibly insightful into the male psyche. I'll see if I can dig it up.

EDIT: Found it! Incredibly insightful comment chain on "the male romantic fantasy" (The third comment down is the one I want to especially draw attention to. Quoted below)

> The Male Romantic Fantasy
I'd say that men usually feel most loved when this normal state of affairs is negated; when they are made to believe that a woman's love is not conditional in the cause-and-effect manner described in the parent post. Love is work for men, but it can be rewarding work when things are going smoothly and the woman is happy as a result. But the male romantic fantasy is to be shown that the woman feels the same way and stands by him when he's down on his luck, when the money's not there, or when he's not feeling confident. He wants to know that the love he believes he's earned will stay even when the actions that feed it wane (however temporarily). A good woman can often lift a man up in his times of need and desperation and weather the storm even when things aren't going well. The male romantic fantasy is an enduring and unconditional love that seems to defy this relationship of labor and reward. A man wants to be loved for who he is, not for what he does in order to be loved.

> An interesting way to examine this is to look at what women often call romantic entitlement. An entitled guy is a dude who maintains an unrealistic notion of men's typically active role in love. Before acknowledging reality, this boy uncompromisingly believes that he shouldn't have to do anything or change anything about himself to earn a woman's love; he wants to be loved for who he is, not what he does.

> All men secretly want this, but there comes a day when they eventually compromise out of necessity. After that day, they may spend years honing themselves, working, shaping themselves into the men they believe women want to be chosen by. A massive part of what causes boys to "grow up" is the realization that being loved requires hard work. This impetus begins a journey where a boy grows into a man by gaining strength, knowledge, resources, and wisdom. The harsh realities of the world might harden and change him into a person his boyhood self wouldn't recognize. He might adopt viewpoints he doesn't agree with, transgress his personal boundaries, or commit acts he previously thought himself incapable of. But ultimately, the goal is to feel as if his work is done.

> When he can finally let go of the crank he continually turns day after day in order to earn love and, even if only for a moment, it turns by itself to nourish him in return, that is when he will know he is loved.

If you're up for more in depth reading, I recommend, "The Way of Men" by Jack Donovan. (Disclaimer: towards the end of the book, the author espouses some rather radical personal philosophical views. His personal views in no way reflect my own, but I still see his book as a fantastic window into the baser male psyche)

Could someone correct me in responding to the "Diversity and Ethnocentrism Hate Facts"?

------------------

(Detrimental) Effects of Multiculturalism

• More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
  What is being controlled for? I would guess that wealth and diversity are related and so diverse poor neighborhoods would indeed have lower social cohesion, but not due to their diversity.
  
  
• A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. & Diversity increases psychotic experiences. & Diversity increases social adversity.
  This seems absurd on its face: I will have to read this carefully.
  
  
• Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. & Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
  Very promising and enticing title.
  
  
• Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
  What definition is being used for "civic health"?
  
  
• Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.
  Sure.
  
  
• Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.
  This seems very complex, and we will have to be careful with "X causes Y claims".
  
  
• Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.
  I'll have to read this, but: does "ethnocentrism" demonstrated here imply a preference? It seems also that we would have to see how it changes after: does it become somewhat "neutral" or does it become negative? It doesn't seem contradictory for one to start in associating oneself with those around them. Additionally: are there any non-white babies? Is it a comparison between white babies and non-white people, or are there non-white babies compared with non-whites, of their same race and of different races?
  
  
• Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
  Sure.
  
  
• Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
  I'll have to read this to see exactly what is being said, but this seems almost obvious: a dispersal from a dominant group to a spread of groups necessarily leaves them with less than they had. It seems almost tautological that it will affect most the largest group. I have to see what they meant by "hurt".
  
  
• Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.
  Is it that those who are able to cause change with their vocalization are instead occupied with their concern for the diversity, and that if they redirected their focus back to the environment that this reduction of concern would disappear?
  
  
• Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
  This seems like a base human instinct that we should seek to overcome rather than fall victim to: there are many things that make humans feel in some way "negative" but that we would never suggest getting rid of.
  
  
• Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.
  What does "reduces" mean?
  
  
• Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
  What controls are being made? Richer neighborhoods are more likely to be homogeneous when contrasted with poorer heterogeneous neighborhoods, and so better health may be due to the wealth rather than the homogeneity.
  
  
• Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation.
  This is perhaps one of the only links here that seems to maybe hold some value (having not yet read it): why is it that diverse cities are also segregated cities?
  
  
• Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.
  I can accept this: race is a kind of extended family, but I would not say the only one. Additionally, ethnocentrism in a weak sense is genetically rational.
  
  
• It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.
  What is the definition of "friends"?
  
  
• Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.
  
  
• Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.
  I could accept this: civil war is precisely war that is inward facing, and altruism in the context of a polity is similarly inward facing. It would seemingly follow then that less civil war and more altruism could be direct byproducts of homogeneity.
  
  
• States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.
  What definition is being used for "inequality"? "corruption"? "democracy"?
  
  
• There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.
  Sure.
  
  

  Major Themes
  

• The existence of a preference implies that it is "good".
  
• That something is natural implies that it is "good".
  
• Shaky "X causes Y" claims when X and Y are simply co-occuring.
  
• There is the mistake that "X is good for Y" is equivalent to "not-X is bad for Y".
  
• Little control for major confounding factors: wealth, geography, age distribution, etc.
  
• The same "theme" was stated multiple times with a link to the same article, effectively making it seem as if there are more pieces of evidence than there actually are. This is worsened when academic papers are linked and then media summaries thereof are linked.
  
  

  More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
  

• "community-diversity dialectic": homophily & proximity; integration
  
• integration “provides opportunities for intergroup contact that are necessary to promote respect for diversity, but may prevent the formation of dense interpersonal networks that are necessary to promote sense of community.”
  
• "If diversity is unattainable at the neighborhood level, might it be possible at the level of the city, as essentially a network of more or less similar neighborhoods? Jane Jacobs liked to say that great cities are federations of neighborhoods."
  
• "Neal about this, he sounded a more optimistic note: “Their patchwork of segregated communities allows for both diversity and cohesion. We usually view segregation as problematic, but when it comes in the form of a patchwork of neighborhoods and enclaves that each have their own character, it may actually ‘work.’”
  
• "Robert Putnam distinguished between two types of social capital: “bonding,” which occurs within like-minded groups, and “bridging,” which occurs between them."
  
  

  A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. & Diversity increases psychotic experiences. & Diversity increases social adversity.
  

  This is an increase in risk in the minority group. Moreover, it's precisely due to an exclusionary force from the majority. This effect can not only be mitigated by higher group cohesion within the minority group, but less exclusion by the majority force.
  > In general, people living in areas of lower own-group density experienced greater social adversity that was in turn associated with reporting psychotic experiences.
  > People resident in neighbourhoods of higher own-group density experience ‘buffering’ effects from the social risk factors for psychosis.
  
  

  Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. & Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
  

  > In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.
  
  (CONTINUED)

Absolutely. Any time you want confirmation of a statement, just ask.

Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study how multiculturalism affects social trust. He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that–when the data were adjusted for class income and other factors–the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities “don’t trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” writes Putnam. In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam maintains that “…we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.

Even Halyard knows this is all a pile of “feel good” shit. Like a religion, it relies on persecuting those who don’t agree to keep itself mainstream thought.

After the study was released, Putnam was intimidated and harassed because he was accused of helping racists. He later came out and gave a very vague statement saying diversity “had problems but was worth it in the long run” to keep these morons appeased. This statement gives no indication of the “long run” and, in fact, is not quantified by anything.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

~:~

According to conflict theory, distrust between ethnic groups rises with diversity, but not within a group. Putnam describes people of all races and socioeconomic statuses, ages, and both sexes as “hunkering down,” avoiding engagement with their local community–both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates–two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining interethnic group trust–more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.

• Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:
  
• Lower confidence in local government, local leaders, and the local news media
  
• Lower political efficacy–that is, confidence in one’s own influence
  
• Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
  
• Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result
  
• Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g. voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage)
  
• Less likelihood of working on a community project
  
• Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering
  
• Fewer close friends and confidants
  
• Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life
  
• More time spent watching television and more agreement that “television is my most important form of entertainment”
  
  Putnam’s study was published in 2001. Genetic cluster analysis of the micro satellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3636 subjects, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622
  
  ~:~
  
  Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence
  
  Alex Rutherford, Dion Harmon, Justin Werfel, Shlomiya Bar-Yam, Alexander Gard-Murray, Andreas Gros, Yaneer Bar-Yam
  
  We consider the conditions of peace and violence among ethnic groups, testing a theory designed to predict the locations of violence and interventions that can promote peace. Characterizing the model’s success in predicting peace requires examples where peace prevails despite diversity. Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability, and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well-defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups. Mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas. Political canton and circle (sub-canton) boundaries often separate religious groups.
  
  Where such boundaries do not appear to be sufficient, we find that specific aspects of the population distribution either guarantee sufficient separation or sufficient mixing to inhibit intergroup violence according to the quantitative theory of conflict. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and violent conflict has led to the recent creation of the canton of Jura. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence, existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but the peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world.
  
  Report #: NECSI 2011-10-01 Cite as: arXiv:1110.1409v1
  
  More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
  http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/
  
  Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
  Diversity increases social adversity.
  A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
  http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
  
  Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
  Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03
  
  Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
  http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full
  
  Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.
  http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract
  
  Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.
  http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787
  
  Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full
  
  Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
  http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf
  
  Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
  http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
  
  Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.
  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6
  
  Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
  http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf
  
  Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.
  https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf
  
  Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
  https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors
  
  Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation.
  http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/
  
  Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.
  http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091
  
  It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.
  http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html
  
  Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.
  http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
  
  Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.
  http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
  
  States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.
  http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
  
  There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.
  http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n_2005-1.pdf

I was 9 through 19 in the 1980s and unlike many others here, I do get why they are being "romanticized," if we take that word fairly loosely. I think a lot of it has to do with the 80s being perceived at the time as the ultra-modern decade, almost the science fiction decade.

You see, in the 1970s, technology was ramping up but it was more in the background. Some few people may have had computers at their work, but they were mainframes and were sort of in the back warrens, not where Sally the Secretary could see them. But most still used paper files. Almost no one had a computer or computer-like device in their homes.

In the late 70s, that began to topple. Home video games started to show up, like Telstar. Arcade games started to happen, like Pong. The first "kit" computers in the home. But it was slow. At the same time, movies, music, and TV started to get more impressive, "modern" special effects. Some of that had to do with the Moog synth in the 70s, then the first Star Wars. TV was lagging a bit here, though. Music was held back to a good degree by the Disco Era which was very powerful and was its own little island in time (and a fun one).

By 1980, I think people felt like "OK, let's do this! Space Age is on!" and everyone went nuts. Music got ridiculously synthy to the point that the whole band was just a synth. TV jumped in pretty soon after, with a show like original Battlestar Galactica hitting in 1980. So things were very science-fictional on TV, but also that pulled in general fantasy or absurd, unbelievable stuff. You had Buck Rogers, ALF, Manimal, Misfits of Science, Automan, Mr. Wizard, Mr. Smith (an orangutan politician in D.C.), The Phoenix (ancient astronaut with sun powers), Wizards and Warriors, The Powers of Matthew Star, Max Headroom, Knight Rider, The Greatest American Hero, Starman, Ray Bradbury Theater, Twilight Zone 80s reboot, V, Voyagers! and others happening mostly within about five weird years.

But you couldn't have music be all synthy and TV like that and have the clothes drab. They had to look ultra-modern, too. So you had DayGlo everywhere, or more plastic-looking materials like whatever parachute pants were made out of. You had angular looking clothing, like thin ties and shoulder pads and V-cut shapes. Even stirrup pants for girls had this angular, future society feeling, sort of. Then the hair had to be angular for guys, with mousse and gel spiking things up so guys looked like a detective from the future.

Sounds impressive, but we're not done. You have the launch of MTV, which was its own whole crazy phenomenon. They were able to be more experimental back then, so you'd have DEVO doing "We're Through Being Cool" and, even weirder, "Peek A Boo" which had laughing devils heads ("Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!") being circled by dancing Tylenol pills or something. In general, MTV was this bizarre hodgepodge, with total cheesy pop followed by hard-to-categorize stuff. But it was just huge.

Then, all this home tech starts to roll in and hard. The first wave of home video games! Atari 2600 is massive; it has its own magazine. Then you have this war of companies in this domain: Intellivision, Colecovision, others. This is all before the Nintendo even hits. At the same time, arcade games go absolutely bonkers and blow-up to the point that songs like "Pac Man Fever" are getting mass market airplay. Arcades become a "third place" for teens when they really need one. As if this wasn't enough, you get home computers for the first time, and the BBS Era, and, and...it's a lot, trust me, it was life-changing.

Home video watching hits, with the VHS tape and that's beyond massive. Home video recording happens. At the same time, cable TV blows up: HBO hits its stride, and new network competitors do, too. Prior to this, TV was basically three networks and a few affiliates. Now, most people had 50 channels to fill. A lot of that filler was 80s cheese, and you got the modern-looking but still bad feel of chroma-key, genlock, bad green screen, and other video effects.

While this is happening, movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark are hitting in theaters and Spielberg is hitting his stride with cultural steamrollers like E.T. Early 80s, for me, really are a special time for movies. I really don't understand it fully, but the movies were quirky but had heart. That would have to be its own whole post, though. If you want a real 1980s feeling movie, try After Hours; the sense of alienation, cheese, and darkness that only that time could do quite like that.

All this is just the pop-cultural froth, and that's what people are romanticizing. In the background, in the real world, we had the Cold War and we were all afraid we'd be killed by an exploding ICBM. The crack and AIDS epidemics. New York City was filthy and its no wonder Escape From New York came out then. But for those of us lucky to avoid the worst of the 1980s, safe in our suburban bubbles, it was a kind of quirky, innocent-in-its-way time.

CONTINUED.

A Harvard study done for ten years involving over 26,000 people.

Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study how multiculturalism affects social trust. He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that–when the data were adjusted for class income and other factors–the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities “don’t trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” writes Putnam. In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam maintains that “…we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.

Even Halyard knows this is all a pile of “feel good” shit. Like a religion, it relies on persecuting those who don’t agree to keep itself mainstream thought.

After the study was released, Putnam was intimidated and harassed because he was accused of helping racists. He later came out and gave a very vague statement saying diversity “had problems but was worth it in the long run” to keep these morons appeased. This statement gives no indication of the “long run” and, in fact, is not quantified by anything.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

~:~

According to conflict theory, distrust between ethnic groups rises with diversity, but not within a group. Putnam describes people of all races and socioeconomic statuses, ages, and both sexes as “hunkering down,” avoiding engagement with their local community–both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates–two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining interethnic group trust–more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.

1. Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:
   
2. Lower confidence in local government, local leaders, and the local news media
   
3. Lower political efficacy–that is, confidence in one’s own influence
   
4. Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
   
5. Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result
   
6. Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g. voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage)
   
7. Less likelihood of working on a community project
   
8. Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering
   
9. Fewer close friends and confidants
   
10. Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life
    
11. More time spent watching television and more agreement that “television is my most important form of entertainment”
    
    Putnam’s study was published in 2001. Genetic cluster analysis of the micro satellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3636 subjects, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.
    
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622
    
    ~:~
    
    Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence
    
    Alex Rutherford, Dion Harmon, Justin Werfel, Shlomiya Bar-Yam, Alexander Gard-Murray, Andreas Gros, Yaneer Bar-Yam
    
    We consider the conditions of peace and violence among ethnic groups, testing a theory designed to predict the locations of violence and interventions that can promote peace. Characterizing the model’s success in predicting peace requires examples where peace prevails despite diversity. Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability, and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well-defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups. Mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas. Political canton and circle (sub-canton) boundaries often separate religious groups.
    
    Where such boundaries do not appear to be sufficient, we find that specific aspects of the population distribution either guarantee sufficient separation or sufficient mixing to inhibit intergroup violence according to the quantitative theory of conflict. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and violent conflict has led to the recent creation of the canton of Jura. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence, existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but the peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world.
    
    Report #: NECSI 2011-10-01
    
    Cite as: arXiv:1110.1409v1
    
    More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
    http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/
    
    Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
    http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
    
    Diversity increases social adversity.
    http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
    
    A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
    http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
    
    Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03
    
    Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03
    
    Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full
    
    Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract
    
    Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.
    http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787
    
    Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full
    
    Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf
    
    Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
    http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
    
    Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6
    
    Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
    http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf
    
    Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.
    https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf
    
    Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
    https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors
    
    Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation.
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/
    
    Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091
    
    It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.
    http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html
    
    Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.
    http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
    
    Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.
    http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
    
    States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.
    http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
    
    There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.
    http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n 2005-1.pdf
    
    >”Because I have posted fact, and you can't refute fact" - What cold hard facts were those again?
    
    They’re elsewhere in the thread, reposted here now.
    
    >My feelings definitely aren’t hurt by you in the least!
    
    Of course they are. That’s why you lash out at unquestionable fact.
    
    >I am actually over here sharing everything with my coworkers who think your freaking crazy!
    
    Then they’re as ignorant as you. Have them read the above and see if they’re still laughing.
    
    >How am I a coward again?
    
    You’re running away without substantiating your claims. You think that “NUH UH YOU RACIST I SAY SO LOL I WIN NOW” is an argument.
    
    FREE YOURSELF FROM YOUR MADNESS. Read what I have posted. Ask ANY questions you like. Give it to your coworkers; repost any of THEIR questions.
    
    You MUST see this. You will see it or you will be MADE to see it, and I don’t want you to be MADE to see it. You should come to it of your own volition.

Straight up, you need to tell him you love him, you care about him, and that you’ll be there to support and accept him whatever he decides. You can’t control what he does, but your love and support will mean a lot to him. It’s important that you demonstrate that you’re truly willing to listen to him and understand him, rather than telling him what you think he needs to do without truly understanding what he’s going through.

A couple more things:
I noticed in one comment you doubted he could be trans because he had been sexually attracted to women in the past. This tells me you may not actually know much about the trans experience, as gender identity and sexual preference can be entirely separate from each other. (Plus, he’s still quite young and it’s possible that he hadn’t yet figured that part of himself out yet.)

If you haven’t already, you ought to read over the APA’s page on transgender people:

https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender


I also highly recommend you read one or both of these books to familiarize yourself better with trans issues and the trans experience.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199325359/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0231157134/

(At the very least, download the free samples through the Kindle app and read through the first couple chapters.)

Also, resist the urge to make this about yourself. Im not sure why you gave details about your career, salary, and romantic life, but please don’t use those facts to guilt or shame your brother. It’s an unkind this to do and it won’t help your relationship with him. It’ll only make him feel worse.

Finally, try to understand how challenging and scary it would be to come out as trans. No one chooses to do this because it’s easy or fun. As cis straight guys, the world is kinda built for us; our experience is totally the norm. For trans people, not only are they different than 99% of the population, but they’re routinely stigmatized and ridiculed but large swathes of society. Imo, it’s pretty fucking brave to come out as trans.

Anyway, good luck, man. My little bro is also in his early 20s and struggling to figure things out. Just try be a good brother and help him move forward in a positive way 💪💪💪

Sexplanations is a great channel and I'm so excited to see Dr. Doe make a video about Disability and Sex. It's a pretty giant overview, but hits a lot of important points that are applicable to CFS. This is a topic that's come up repeatedly on the chat groups and I thought it might be nice to bring here.

I especially liked her clarification that people with disabilities can be gay/straight/bi/poly/trans/asexual/kinky/vanilla/whatever - that sexuality is not defined by disability. As I've gotten to know people from this community (r/cfs) I've met people with many different sexual orientations and preferences.

Dr. Doe also talks about how people with disabilities are often desexualized which is something I certainly found as I got sicker.

And I appreciated her mention that some people fetishize disabilities in a harmful way. When I first started dating post-cfs I found this quite a bit (ick!)

I wish she had talked a little bit more about tactics for us to work around our physical limitations in our love lives. I've found this community very helpful in that area but haven't seen it talked about publicly very much. Perhaps in a future video.

----
As an aside, the book that Dr. Doe recommends at 5:50 (The Ultimate Guide to Sex and Disability) was actually shown to me by someone on here a while back. It's a good book and does a nice job of including energy disabilities. If you're starting to figure out how sexuality/dating/sex works with CFS it's worth checking out.

Links to the book:

• US Amazon
  
• UK Amazon new or used
  
  edit: words brain hard fog GAH

Hello! Cei here. Thank you for your question and for your willingness to learn and grow for your community!
Question 1.a. If you are providing a space (a group, a confirmation class, a retreat, a bible study, a weekly potluck, a movie night, etc) for these young people to be themselves- to use they name they choose, to use the pronouns that fit for them, and to create norms where the other youth in the space must be respectful of these identities- then you are creating a safe space for the youth to go through the process of self-actualization in their identity. Ideally the church congregation would also be asked to affirm these youth in their identity. Depending on your comfort level, you could address the congregation and explain that you would like the church to be a sacred and safe space for all, and that in the interest of achieving this goal, you would ask them to respect names, pronouns, and gender expressions of all congregation members. b. One of the best ways to advocate for young people to their parents is to explain that the young person is happy, responding well, and thriving in environments where they are allowed to be themselves. If you have a young person who comes to your group/bible study/etc. who is using the name they choose, the pronouns that fit their identity, and is affirmed by the group around them and they are thriving, tell the young person's parents so. It may be that at home the parents see a kid who is struggling and sad and they are scared that being gender diverse will make things harder for their already unhappy child. To show that gender affirmation can radically improve a kid's quality of life is often the best motivator for parents to adopt affirming language.

2. Here are links to a few resources that we've found helpful over the years: Trans Bodies, Trans Selves, The Transgender Teen, The Genderquest Workbook, Confi's Article on Gender, Families In TRANSition.

I hope this helps, and thanks again for advocating for the gender diverse people at your church!

There are many who exhibit the traits that you consider "alpha"; leadership, firm character, integrity (maintaining their frame). The issue is that their goals may be terrible for others. Many incarcerated murderers are attractive to women, but are not "great men".

Jack Donovan touches on the dual concept of "being a good man" and "good at being a man". To summarise in a sentence: the first is creating a good society with men while the second is surviving as a man in a tribe. The Way of Men is about this concept; read the book as my one sentence summary does not do the subject any justice.

/u/RedSunBlue has a good description. Traits that are associated with "alpha" are those that demonstrate good health and genetics (women want to reproduce with you); "beta" traits are those that make men good providers (women want a LTR with you).

Alpha traits are said to be best because they create value; beta traits give value.

> I never said anything about chromosome being the basis, in any of my comments. And reproductive organs have bearing in a lot more parts of life than what people want to identify as.

That's a mighty tall claim. Feel like backing that up? Because for my money, your gonads are relevant A) if you're trying to reproduce, and don't have banked reproductive material, and... ... ...well, with the advent of exogenous sex hormones, nope, that's pretty much it.

> Yes, but that's not the only definition in the dictionary. The fact that there's another definition for each of those words provides an escape from circularity. The same cannot be said for the "a man is anyone who identifies as a man" definition.

We've been through this. I'm more than willing to go through it with you again, if you'd like. I'd be happy to demonstrate for you all of the ways in which the dictionaries' definitions are problematic - you pick a dictionary, and we can have at it. But at the end of the day, it won't matter, because "The dictionary says so!" is still nothing more than an appeal to tradition, and meaningless.

> Try backing up when you disagree instead of just saying that you disagree.

Nope. I'm not getting mired in seven layers of BS going back and forth about aspersions you've cast that aren't really relevant to the conversation, but I'm not going to let them stand unanswered, either.

> Ok, let's start with this one. First of all, a "man" is a person and not a role. I'm going to go ahead and guess you meant a man is a (person who conforms to a ) gender roll.

Why thank you for being so generous, O Pedantic One. Notwithstanding that I've never seen a gender roll (is that like a sesame roll?), no, I was talking about the concept that the word "man" points to.

> For one, you don't actually describe what this role is. You're just kicking the can down the street to this undescribed male gender role. Is the role about wearing pants? Is it about having a job and being the primary income-earner for one's family? It's hard to securely describe a role without resulting to stereotypes.

I did describe what it is. All of the things you list are furniture, ornamentation that different cultures hang on the role. "Man", or "men", refers to a role that exists in every human culture, associated with but not exclusive to people with penises. That is literally what the word means. When you discuss men in Western culture, men in traditional Chinese culture, men in !Kung culture, and men in Lakota culture, that is what you are referring to. "Man", as a concept, is a variable. I'm surprised that you don't seem to understand this, because it's honestly pretty simple.

> Although intersex people exist, saying there s a continuum implies that people generally fall all over the spectrum, which isn't true. The vast majority of people fall neatly into "only male" or "only female" with respect to reproductive organs.

What you just said is "Your definition is wrong in terms of my definition". Try again.

> That really depends on how one defines sex.

You don't say.

It's almost as though you defied me to present definitions to you, and then I did that.

> My definition (which is the one you're supposed to be arguing against)

In point of fact, it's not. I was arguing in favor of the definition I was presenting, since you cried so much about the unreasonable standard I held yours to (which seems to be code for "I ran out of arguments and couldn't back it up"). Would you like to discuss your shitty definition, instead?

> Secondary sex characteristics are not nearly as important as the author of that seems to think. Actually, none of these things (primary sex characteristics, secondary sex characteristics, or gender identity) are especially important for most things (or at least they shouldn't be). But there are a few areas in which sex is still relevant (locker rooms, possible romantic partners, etc.). I can't think of any situation where what somebody identifies as would really be important.

Yes, you can. Because you don't actually gender people on the basis of their reproductive organs. You don't interact with people on the basis of their reproductive organs. The definition you claim to use, you do not actually use, in real life.

> It's important to make a distinction, however, between those traits that merely correlate with men or women, and those traits that define who is a man and who is a woman.

Sure. Easily done. All of the traits listed are correlated with men and women. Gender identity defines who is a man and who is a woman.

> why shouldn't we apply the same standard to humans that we do to other animals?

Because humans base our societies on gender roles, and not on reproductive organs. If you would like evidence of this, look at the entirety of human history. If you would like evidence of this that is not snarky and sarcastic, go read Leslie Feinberg's book Transgender Warriors, which discusses the history of transgender people and of gender in general throughout human history and across a diverse array of cultures.

> but your definition really begs the question of what would fall under the "gender role" associated with men or women

It honestly doesn't.

> Just in plain, Midwestern, Euro-American culture, what's an example of one thing that would fall under the "male" social role and one thing that would fall under the "female" social role?

That's irrelevant to the discussion. Like, I mean it: completely irrelevant. What specifics a culture hangs on the gender role has nothing to do with the existence of the role, nor its stability throughout humankind. The point is that "men" and "women", as concepts relating to classes of people, are fundamental to human nature, and universal to humans broadly.

> For gender and sex to "match," they would have to be the same category of thing, which they are not. The fact that we use the same words to describe them does not mean that they "match."

I think you're smart enough to make the leap on this one by yourself. I'll give you a hint, though: what you want to think about are the correlations expressed above.

Hmm... I must say I take exactly the opposite stance on Noam and Free speech that you do – he always strikes me as a leader and champion in such things.

Among many many other things he actually ended up putting his carrier (and possibly life) at risk defending free speech in the Faurisson affair.

One of Noam's most famous quotes is "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." (from his book Manufacturing Consent which deals with EXACTLY what gamer gate is dealing with: calling out a corrupt political elite controlling the narratives that come out of the mass media as to manipulate the populous into otherwise unpopular views.)

But I do like to understand where people are coming from as I might learn something. Could you let me know how you reached that Stance on Noam? ...because I am pretty surprised and confused by it.

> We build section 8 homes and they simply produce more crime in good neighborhoods.

Much like how a nation is not created by its land or borders, but the people with a shared heritage and culture who inhabit it, it's not the section 8 homes: it's the people living in them.

And this is where I diverge with the rest of /r/the_donald, so please excuse me.

You'll also notice that the crime in Chicago, like anywhere else, heavily corresponds with race. I can't access sources right now, but if you removed non-whites from Chicago, something like 90% of murders would disappear overnight. Being a minority of the population, yet committing a super majority of violent crime, is damning to say the least.

Oh btw I actually did find some source material in my comment history you may find interesting:

Humans can be genetically categorized into five racial groups, corresponding to traditional races.
http://pritchardlab.stanford.edu/publications/pdfs/RosenbergEtAl02.pdf

Genetic analysis "supports the traditional racial groups classification."
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

"Human genetic variation is geographically structured" and corresponds with race.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15508000

Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622

Oral bacteria can be used to determine race.
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-oral-bacteria-fingerprint-mouth.html

Race can be determined via brain scans.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)00671-5

96-97% of whites have no African ancestry.
http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.3.html

97% of Whites have no black ancestry whatsoever.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/

There was "minimal gene flow" between archaic Europeans and Asians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html

Common-sense racial categories have biological meaning.
http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf

Human intelligence is highly heritable.
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html

Scientific consensus is that IQ tests are not racially biased.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305

Very poor Whites are comparably intelligent to very wealthy blacks.
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

Privately, intelligence experts hold more hereditarian views than they express in public.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1994egalitarianfiction.pdf

Black children raised in White households have similar IQs to black children in black households.
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1977-07996-001

The average African IQ is estimated at 79.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912003741

The average African-American IQ is 85, compared to the average White IQ of 100.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

The white-black gap in SAT scores, a proxy for IQ, is increasing.
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

Genes for large brains, linked to high IQ, are common everywhere except Africa.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115040765329081636

Intelligence has a 40-50% genetic basis.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/10/news/la-heb-genetic-study-intelligence-20110809

IQ scores are the best predictor of success in Western society.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

IQ is 75% heritable among Whites.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity increases social adversity.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.
https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.
http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n 2005-1.pdf

To be clear, this is a defense of ethnic homogeneity. Doesn't have to mean "100% this or that people", but striving for it shouldn't be a crime. In fact it's the natural state of things imo

edit: also it seems several of these are dead links. I apologize. I really need to update this list...

Haven't you ever wondered why the scientific consensus is the opposite of your claims?

For starters, IQ isn't a great all-around measure of intelligence. It does accurately predict social outcomes and is highly correlated with many intellectual and academic accomplishments, but it has severe flaws. Take for example the Flynn Effect: previous generations had much lower IQ scores than today, when normalized to be on the same scale. The rapid increase of IQ globally (Great Britain saw an increase of 15 points in 70 years) cannot be explained by any plausible genetic explanation—the increase has simply been too fast. Genetic effects couldn't have spread throughout the entire population. There is also no plausible argument that general intelligence has improved by that much. If it had, 40% of the British population a century ago would be mentally damaged by today's standards.

The reasons for the Flynn Effect are unclear. A rise in standardized testing and formal schooling appears to be at least part of it. What is clear is that when comparing people from wildly different environments, IQ is a poor measure of general intelligence. (When comparing people from similar environments, it does remarkably well. The reasons for this are still being studied.)

_

Even if IQ were a good measure of intelligence (which it isn't), that doesn't mean IQ score differences are genetic. Indeed, we know for a fact that they aren't.

Take the Burakumin of Japan. They are an ostracized class and have been for centuries; due to complex religious/spiritual/social reasons, if you have an ancestor who engaged in an "unclean" profession (e.g., a prostitute, a butcher, an actor, etc.), you too are unclean and are socially inferior. The important thing is that the class is genetically identical to the rest of the Japanese population. You can't tell the difference by looking, which is why the Burakumin were forced to get tattoos, and why corporations started keeping lists of who was Burakumin so they knew who not to hire. Today, while those lists are banned, they are still socially stigmatized, and the group forms the ranks of the Japanese mafia, with the tattoos becoming a source of pride.

Anyway, the average have an IQ of the Burakumin is 10-15 points lower than the average Japanese person. See here. This is the same as the gap between white Americans and black Americans. Importantly, both gaps have been shrinking. Most interestingly, the Japanese gap completely disappears among immigrants to the United States—the people here don't know that they're supposed to discriminate against one of the groups.

Similar stories of vanishing IQ gaps appear all over the field. Adopting someone at three years old from Sub-Saharan Africa into a European family cuts the IQ gap by 15 points., cutting the IQ gap in half. The remaining gap, to reiterate, is the same sized that is known to be caused by discrimination. And note further that this is without any improved pre-natal care, which is known to be extremely important to a child's health.

_

Finally, this is all assuming that "race" is a thing, scientifically speaking, which it isn't. To draw an analogy, it's like constellations. Yes, some stars are closer to others. But the physical differences have little connection with how they appear in the sky, any anyways are not clustered into distinct groups. The stars and the distances between them exist; the pictures only exist in your head. I mean, the idea of "whiteness" isn't even self-consistent and varies across time. Are Poles white? Are Russians? Are Italians? Are Southern-Europeans? Are North-Africans and Middle-Easterners? Are Indians? Are Jews? Are Spaniards? Are Mexicans? Are Chileans? (The last few are the most hilarious currently—the jumps required to assert that South Americans are genetically inferior to "us", but "us" includes the Spanish and Portuguese, are hilarious.)

__

Race doesn't exist the way you think it does. Intelligence might, based on the g-factor (scores in completely different aptitude tests are correlated, suggesting a legitimate "general intelligence"), but IQ is not a good measure of it cross-populations. Intelligence is not a metric of moral standing; the Jews aren't naturally the superiors of everyone else just because they have higher IQ. And IQ differences are entirely explainable by environmental factors.

You have it made, little brother. You're beginning this journey at an optimal age. Your life, starting now, will be an amazing climb into all manhood has to offer the bold. Congratulations.

Now. Here are the instructions I would've given 17-year-old me.

Read:

The Way of Men by Jack Donovan.

The Way of the Superior Man by David Deida.

Everything by Robert Greene.

The works of Rudyard Kipling, Jack London, and Mark Twain. Plus Jules Verne if you enjoy science fiction. Read as many other classical authors as you want, there's a very good reason their work has stuck with us.

Psychology texts. Philosophy texts. Study how to think, what it means to think, and how the way people think has changed throughout history.

Speaking of, history texts. Learn from the triumphs and failures of men before you.

Do:

Study nutrition & exercise science. I recommend looking into the Paleo nutrition philosophy, but make up your own mind based on your own research. In fact, making up your own mind based on your own research should probably be the number one thing you focus on. Never follow the lead of the herd.

Learn how to build habits. This will help to increase your productivity throughout your life. Find your ideal routine, and stick with it until it's natural; then feel free to deviate occasionally. Practice mindfulness at all times.

Learn to fight. Martial arts, boxing, wrestling - study some form of self-defense, preferably more than one. When you can handle yourself in a fight, you've taken one step further along the path of truly understanding yourself.

Study people. Talk to people. Befriend people. Piss people off when you have cause. Ultimately, lead people.

Pursue your passions. Explore what makes you tick. Know your strengths, and excel at them.

Above all else, remember:

Think with your mind. Act from your balls.

To quote someone else in this thread.
> Facts don't care about your feelings

I'm glad you agree.

> Who told you it was a lie...?

Reality, common sense, and mountains of data.
__
> More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.

>Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
____

>Diversity increases social adversity.

> A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
__
>Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
_
>Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
____
>Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
____
>Ethnic diversity harms health for Hispanics and Blacks.

>Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
____
>Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.

>Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
____
>Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.

> Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
__

> In America, more diverse cities have more segregation.


>Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.


>States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.


>There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.


>Borders, not multiculturalism, reduce intergroup violence.


>Diversity reduces charity and volunteering.


>People who live in diverse communities rather than homogenous ones are poorer and less educated.


>Black people trust their neighbors less than do White people.


>Spanish speakers trust their neighbors less than do English speakers.


>Asians trust their neighbors less than do White people.


>Ethnically diverse workplaces have lower cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover.


>Ethnic diversity reduces social trust.


>Ethnic diversity among members of the same race reduces infrastructure quality, charity, and loan repayment.
__

>Diversity of any sort makes people more likely to defect in game theoretic scenarios.
__

>Homogeneous military units have less desertion than diverse units.


>Diversity correlates with low GDP.
____

>Ethnic homogeneity correlates with strong democracy.
__

>Genetic diversity causes societal conflict.
__

>Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion.


>Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.


>Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-Whites.
_

>Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
____

>Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.


>Ethnocentrism is biological in origin and a superior evolutionary strategy to altruism.
__

>Humans are more altruistic to individuals who they are more closely related to.


>People subconsciously prefer those who are genetically similar to them for biologically rational reasons.


>Kinship between members of an ethnic group is greater than expected.


>Social trust is negatively affected by ethnic diversity: Case study in Denmark from 1979 to the present.


>Ethnic homogeneity and Protestant traditions positively impact individual and societal levels of social trust.


>“In longitudinal perspective, [across European regions], an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust.”


>Immigration undermines the moral imperative of those who most favor welfare benefits for the neediest.


>The negative effect of community diversity on social cohesion is likely causal.


>In Switzerland, social peace between diverse factions isn’t maintained by integrated coexistence, but rather by strong topographic and political borders that separate groups and allow them autonomy.


>Increasing social pluralism (diversity) is correlated with increased chance of collective violence.
____

>In Germany, residential diversity reduces natives’ trust in neighbors, while it also reduces immigrants’ trust but through a different pathway.
_

>“Ethnic heterogeneity [diversity] explains 55% of the variation in the scale of ethnic conflicts, and the results of regression analysis disclose that the same relationship applies to all 187 countries."
__

>Genetic Similarity Theory (GST) could help explain why diverse groups in close proximity increases ethnic conflict and ethnic nepotism.
__

>Genetic diversity has contributed significantly to frequency of ethnic civil conflict, intensity of social unrest, growth of unshared policy preferences, and economic inequality over the last half-century.


>Using social science data and computer modeling, researchers found that policies that attempt to create neighborhoods that are both integrated and socially cohesive are “a lost cause”.


>The numbers and the genetic distance matter. Minority groups that get above a certain critical mass, and that are culturally distant from the majority culture, begin to self-segregate from the majority, moving society toward division and away from cooperation.


>School integration (forced proximate diversity) will not close race achievement gaps.


>As diversity increases, politics becomes more tribalistic.
_

>Company diversity policies don’t help minorities or women, and they psychologically discriminate against White men.
__

>Greater classroom and neighborhood diversity is linked to stronger tendencies to choose same-ethnic rather than cross-ethnic friends.

there's kinda two spectrums of beliefs on what is trans. some people adhere to social construction theories to explain trans stuff. some people adhere to peer-reviewed scientific research to explain things. i prefer the later, so i'd suggest searching this sub for research as well as reading the papers off pubmed. here's a nice overview of concepts from harvard: Between the (Gender) Lines: the Science of Transgender Identity. i also like the center of excellence for transgender health care as well as the world professional association for transgender health's standards of care document.. there's also an excellent book available called trans bodies, trans selves on amazon that covers a huge amount of information from the perspective of trans people. i really like this book a lot as it gives a very human touch to us as well as attempts to cover the vast diversity of the transgender experience. lots of people are given a voice in this book and it is very beautifully written. honestly, this is where i'd start with us.

the transgender community is incredibly diverse and it really is one of the best parts of being a part of the community.

A lot of what you are describing of the Trivium appears to be very similar to the (lost?) Liberal Arts: are those subjects or skills that in classical antiquity were considered essential for a free person (Latin: liberalis, "worthy of a free person") to know in order to take an active part in civic life, something that (for Ancient Greece) included participating in public debate, defending oneself in court, serving on juries, and most importantly, military service. Grammar, logic, and rhetoric were the core liberal arts, while arithmetic, geometry, the theory of music, and astronomy also played a (somewhat lesser) part in education. LINK

I believe what you are talking about is summarized in the book: Closing of the American Mind

The liberal arts have been largely removed from education, and is de-emphasized in colleges and universities. I took STEM, and when I was in college liberal arts were looked down upon. It's only recently that I have taken up an interest in the liberal arts and I know have a profound respect for it. St John's university runs a very interesting course on The Great Books that looks fascinating, and is what I believe is missing from our modern education.

The Great Books Curriculum: The four-year program of study, nearly all of which is mandatory, demands that students read and discuss the works of many of Western civilization's most prominent contributors to philosophy, theology, mathematics, science, music, poetry, and literature.

The program involves:

• Four years of literature, philosophy, and political science in seminar
  
• Four years of mathematics
  
• Three years of laboratory science
  
• Four years of language (Ancient Greek, Middle/Early English, and French)

>nobody has to give rich people power

Yes

>wealth is power

Yes

>in the absence of checks on power

Absence of a state isn't an absence of checks on power, they're simply privatized and organized so that a profit will come to thkse who check power most effectively (private arbitrators and REAs)

>the only check on power is government

No, government is the consolidation of power for the purpose of the most effective exploitation of people.

Wealth may only be gained in two ways, the economically or politically. Economically is to buy, sell, trade, or create wealth in some way. Politically is to use force to take what you want.

The government is nothing more than a parasite on those who produce wealth economically by those with power who wish to extract said wealth politically.

Nobody will work for free, but if you tell them it goes towards roads, or healthcare, etc, they will pay to have peace of mind, even while their wealth is being pocketed. Government is organized parasitism on the grandest scale with the goal of extracting maximum wealth for as long as possible.

>wealth has to ask permission

Wealth buys permission. Look at the industries government has molested and it's effects. Throughout history it coughs up monopolies and protectionism to who ever will pay them to do it. Look at railroads, airlines, healthcare, first class mail, oil, pharmaceuticals, steel/aluminum, etc. They all were once competitive markets that were choked after some rich fuck slipped blank checks under politicians' doors.

>standing armies with the worst things imaginable

The united states military drone strikes third mud huts and brushes off the civilian and child collateral like it's nothing, we turned two cities to dust, and forced hundreds of thousands of men into a service over a lie. This assertion seems to have already taken shape.

>Anarcho-whateverism

My favourite brand!

If you enjoy political literature you might enjoy this

> Facts don't care about your feelings

I'm glad you agree.

> Who told you it was a lie...?

Reality, common sense, and mountains of data.
__
> More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.

>Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
____

>Diversity increases social adversity.

> A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
__
>Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
_
>Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
____
>Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
____
>Ethnic diversity harms health for Hispanics and Blacks.

>Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
____
>Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.

>Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
____
>Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.

> Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
__

> In America, more diverse cities have more segregation.


>Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.


>States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.


>There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.


>Borders, not multiculturalism, reduce intergroup violence.


>Diversity reduces charity and volunteering.


>People who live in diverse communities rather than homogenous ones are poorer and less educated.


>Black people trust their neighbors less than do White people.


>Spanish speakers trust their neighbors less than do English speakers.


>Asians trust their neighbors less than do White people.


>Ethnically diverse workplaces have lower cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover.


>Ethnic diversity reduces social trust.


>Ethnic diversity among members of the same race reduces infrastructure quality, charity, and loan repayment.
__

>Diversity of any sort makes people more likely to defect in game theoretic scenarios.
__

>Homogeneous military units have less desertion than diverse units.


>Diversity correlates with low GDP.
____

>Ethnic homogeneity correlates with strong democracy.
__

>Genetic diversity causes societal conflict.
__

>Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion.


>Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.


>Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-Whites.
_

>Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
____

>Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.


>Ethnocentrism is biological in origin and a superior evolutionary strategy to altruism.
__

>Humans are more altruistic to individuals who they are more closely related to.


>People subconsciously prefer those who are genetically similar to them for biologically rational reasons.


>Kinship between members of an ethnic group is greater than expected.


>Social trust is negatively affected by ethnic diversity: Case study in Denmark from 1979 to the present.


>Ethnic homogeneity and Protestant traditions positively impact individual and societal levels of social trust.


>“In longitudinal perspective, [across European regions], an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust.”


>Immigration undermines the moral imperative of those who most favor welfare benefits for the neediest.


>The negative effect of community diversity on social cohesion is likely causal.


>In Switzerland, social peace between diverse factions isn’t maintained by integrated coexistence, but rather by strong topographic and political borders that separate groups and allow them autonomy.


>Increasing social pluralism (diversity) is correlated with increased chance of collective violence.
____

>In Germany, residential diversity reduces natives’ trust in neighbors, while it also reduces immigrants’ trust but through a different pathway.
_

>“Ethnic heterogeneity [diversity] explains 55% of the variation in the scale of ethnic conflicts, and the results of regression analysis disclose that the same relationship applies to all 187 countries."
__

>Genetic Similarity Theory (GST) could help explain why diverse groups in close proximity increases ethnic conflict and ethnic nepotism.
__

>Genetic diversity has contributed significantly to frequency of ethnic civil conflict, intensity of social unrest, growth of unshared policy preferences, and economic inequality over the last half-century.


>Using social science data and computer modeling, researchers found that policies that attempt to create neighborhoods that are both integrated and socially cohesive are “a lost cause”.


>The numbers and the genetic distance matter. Minority groups that get above a certain critical mass, and that are culturally distant from the majority culture, begin to self-segregate from the majority, moving society toward division and away from cooperation.


>School integration (forced proximate diversity) will not close race achievement gaps.


>As diversity increases, politics becomes more tribalistic.
_

>Company diversity policies don’t help minorities or women, and they psychologically discriminate against White men.
__

>Greater classroom and neighborhood diversity is linked to stronger tendencies to choose same-ethnic rather than cross-ethnic friends.
_

There's even more where that came from, but you should probably just take the L and move on.

(edit:Fixed some dead links, will fix the rest later. There's already more than enough there to discredit the baseless "diversity is our strength" neomarxist dogma though.)

Essay time! This and this are kind of like the primer essays for 'so you're questioning, now what'. They answer a lot of questions about the experience of gender dysphoria and how it is through someone's life as well as help to reframe the situation in various ways, would strongly recommend.

Books wise, I know Whipping Girl gets recced around a lot - whether you're MtF or FtM, it has a lot to offer and is pretty good. Gender Outlaws is another great read that is pretty current / up to date in terms of what it offers and has a ton of perspectives on the situation that you might find handy. I would also highly recommend Trans Bodies, Trans Selves as a great resource to pursue.

Edit: Couple more! Check out The Genderbread Person for a quick handy look at the different ways to think about gender identity and what it means, and if that interests you then you might also be interested in the accompanying book, Guide to Gender.

> I'll add I'm also single and without dependents

Given that and your location, if you're also a college student, you're basically at the absolute peak of American sociability.

> I'm not so sure about measurements of very personal relationships throughout history.

You could be right. I've read a study or two that show that circles of friendship are shrinking, and books like Bowling Alone and The Great Good Place discuss the issue, but it could just be wrapped up nostalgia in disguise.

> most Americans are urbanized.

That's true and will, I think, ultimately be good news but keep in mind that "urban" here is a pretty broad term that includes the sparse suburbia a lot of Americans live in.

> Besides turning back the clock, do you think that urbanization will continue to worsen or improve our social opportunities

Everything seems to swing back and forth. Since the industrial revolution, we've swung towards depersonalization to some degree. As we move towards an information economy I think we have the opportunity to swing back some.

> or is that question too broad/undetermined/dauntingly huge to broach?

I don't think any question is too huge to broach, you just need to approach it with similarly huge solutions. In this case, honestly, I think the problem might be solved for us. If the energy crisis gets worse, people will start clustering back together for practical reasons, and I think that will lead to more human contact.

Things like new urbanism are positive signs too, but I don't know if it's a fad that will pass. (At the very least, the real estate bubble popping has put a hurt on it. Orlando is full of empty condos right now.)

A bad economy is actually good news for this too: a new TV and a big house in the suburbs is pretty expensive compared to a smaller home and having friends over for Monopoly.

> MGTOW Doesn't Get The Respect It Deserves

Now why is that? We know that its not respectable for a man to quit, to run away from that which he finds appealing (all healthy young men find women appealing). Let alone walking away from a challenge, which women today are.

Lets set a definition. From our side bar glossary:

• Men Going Their Own Way; the growing contingent of the male population who are saying “Fuck It All” to the Mating Dance.
  
  MGTOW are committing an act of self-betrayal. Especially the younger ones. They don't seem to realize an important fact: Eventually we all go MGTOW. Its called "Getting old".
  
  MGTOW just gives a feeling of validation to a generation of young men wasting their days on videogames and porn, completely hoodwinked into thinking that they are wasting nothing by doing so. There is no book, no art, no website that will teach a young man more than he would learn by going out and socializing. Particularly with women he is interested in.
  
  Yes, dating sucks. Yes, it has never been this hard. No, young men should not give up. They should change strategies and improve their socializing skill while they have the energy and availability to do so. Throwing their opportunity in the trash is self-betrayal even if they don't realize the mistake they are making.
  
  Even worse, by accepting the validation that MGTOW provides, they are taking on an identity that other people have made for them.
  
  
  > backlash from women because it is a direct threat to their sexual strategy
  
  Absolutely not. Read the sidebar. They will happily move on to the available men, particularly the top 20%.
  
  > Even those that are in happy relationships seem to understand why MGTOW makes sense and can come to a rational agreement and support the freedom that MGTOW gives men.
  
  Running away is not freedom. Freedom when one is able to do something one wants to do. This is granted via the right perspective, which is for a man to put himself first. MGTOW cannot lay claim to this perspective or any other self-improvement despite its attempts to redefine itself.
  
  > However it is not meant to be a lifetime commitment as it directly challenges our biological need to procreate and reproduce.
  
  This is somewhat correct but for the wrong reasons. The challenge from MGTOW is not to our biology but to our freedom, which is (indirectly) what MGTOW will do to a young man as he ages.
  
  From the MGTOW subreddit sidebar definition:
  
  "We are men going our own way by forging our own identities and paths to self-defined success; cutting through collective ideas of what a man is."
  
  > forging our own identities
  
  Admirable try. Identity is created by harsh experiences and reactions from others, as undesirable as that may be.
  Also, interpersonal identity is not as self defined as one would hope
  
  
  > paths to self-defined success
  
  Here is the problem: If one does not know what a successful life is or its potential, how would one know what success is or can be? I ask rhetorically because its clear that younger men do not personally know their potential . They have no business writing off the things they aspire to, this is essentially why MGTOW gets a bad rap, as it should.
  
  The men who experience high levels of success do everything they can to continue it and increase it. They do not check out because of the complaints that MGTOW espouse.
  
  > cutting through collective ideas of what a man is.
  
  Thanks to feminists and gender identity politics "A man" is a murky concept that everyone believes they have a valid opinion on. Young men are understandably unclear about it.
  
  Here is a part of one of my definitions:
  A man changes his environment to his will, as best he can.
  
  Here is a good book on the matter
  
  
  In conclusion, game (Socializing) is a skill and if every MGTOW built up that skill instead of rationalizing away his retreat there would be no such thing as MGTOW. I have empathy for these boys but they are making the wrong choice. We only live once.

I have a milder form of CP in my legs. Instantly visble in my walk and curved back. I can move on my own but curbs or stairs with no railing pretty much nerf me unless I have a hand or the walls are close enough together.

I was forced for 6 and a half years starting at age 12 to use a walker at school. It killed my self esteem and I thought no woman would ever want me as you don't grow out of Palsy. At about 17 I had had enough of trying to pretend like it didn't matter. The Ultimate Guide to Sexuality and Disability is written by 3 people, two with disabilities and all sex educators. It has some solid practical information on positions/technique/toys but to me the best part was the emotional healing it gave me even curing some biases I didn't realize I had. Its from 2003 so it doesn't really go into online dating but its tips for meeting people and self-esteem chapter is still very relevant. https://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Guide-Sex-Disability-Disabilities/dp/B00FFBGURQ

I've had 1 girlfriend for a few months in 2014. Early 2016 I realized I'm part kinkster. Not the 50 Shades crap, the real thing. I went from knowing nobody like me in real life to knowing a guy in a wheelchair, a woman with a service dog and walker, two women with chronic pain problems and one guy with a cognitive condition all in my small local scene. The book has a chapter on 'S/M' sex too and the creativity of it enthralled me. People with Palsy have to be creative to navigate the world that's not made for us. This is great for BDSM. Its not all pain and chains and we are not all warped to enjoy it.

I've been accepted by them bad legs and all and had an amazing Halloween experience where I learned the curved back I always resented feels amazing when candle wax is dripped on it.

If your not into that fine, but I though I'd share my story with you. If you have questions about it or the book I'll be happy to answer. I'll link my first two munches (public dinner) in my local community and my Halloween story where I finally felt good about my body. The Halloween one is long but I think you'll enjoy it. I also know two books on kink and disability if you want the info.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BDSMcommunity/comments/4id7bw/an_exwalker_freaks_review_of_a_munch/?st=ivk5c0mg&sh=87a7dfbe

https://www.reddit.com/r/BDSMcommunity/comments/4ko5jt/an_ex_walkers_freaks_review_of_a_munchpart_2/?st=ivk5c1h8&sh=b8b363c3

https://www.reddit.com/r/BDSMcommunity/comments/58uyti/halloween_2016_the_exwalker_freaks_first_play/?st=ivhi618f&sh=42ab3f60

We Are Our Language: An Ethnography of Language Revitalization in a Northern Athabaskan Community by Barbra Meek

If anyone has any interest in language revitalization, I think this is a great read.

Wisdom Sits in Place: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache by Keith Basso

A classic.

Trade of the Tricks: Inside the Magician's Craft by Graham Jones

Not nearly as heavy on the linguistics as the other two I mentioned (though he has a fair amount on language), but I thought it was a very entertaining and interesting read!

In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio by Philippe Bourgois

He constantly uses large chunks of quoted text from his informants, so there's really interesting code-switching and discussions of dialects and language ideologies happening, but it's not something that the author really focuses on or analyzes (his focus is on political economy). But I enjoyed it as an ethnography.

Writing Women's Worlds: Bedouin Stories by Lila Abu-Lughod

Fantastically written, really recommend this one, though it's not linguistic at all.

The Greatest Story Never Told

The Greatest Story Never Told- Youtube

Who controls your mind

Thanks Jews! A public service announcement

Oscar winners

A bit of a joke, but the point is still the same

Revisionism in 30 minutes

Long, but thorough articles on revisionism, lots of information and sources

____

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.

[Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.] (http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf)

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.

Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that there are significant biological differences depending on one's race. If you can get a sample of someone's DNA, it is relatively easy to determine their race using principal component analysis. If you were to sample the DNA of numerous individuals, and then make a PCA chart, you'll see significant clustering consistent with biological races. Below is a chart from an extensive study of biological differences that arose from geographical separation. The further apart the colored dots appear, the more disparate the genetic differences are.


Chart

Link to official scientific study

As a bonus, here's another study done that analyzed the genetic data of 3,636 people. Similar results were found within the statistics. Link

Race is definitely not just a social construct. It exists within a person's genes and shows within their biology. If you give a skilled forensic anthropologist a skeleton, they are able to determine that person's race fairly easily. Even relatively loose racial associations, such as Hispanics can be determined with above average accuracy.

The biological differences extend further than just the skin or even just the skeletons and genetic makeup. Scientists have found significant differences within biological processes, such as the nervous system, between different races. In the chart I am about to show you, the races that there primarily studied were Africans, Europeans, East Asians. There was much variation that was found within their nervous systems.

Chart

Link to official scientific study

If we used the taxonomic standards that we use for animals, Homo Sapiens would have multiple subspecies. Regardless of whether or not humans can reproduce across racial boundaries, there subspecies of animals, such as different subspecies of lions and bears that can do such a thing to.

Source

Source

Now a common myth that you may have heard is that people have more differences within their own race than outside their own race. This is a common mistake that is known as Lewontin's Fallacy, also known as Lewontin's Paradox. Basically, such a statement is only accurate when you examine the frequency of different alleles at an individual locus, which gives one a very inaccurate picture of true differences between any sort of genetic populations. When scientists analyze different races while accounting for and analyzing many loci, the results are entirely different.

Chart

Link to official scientific study

Another frequently perpetuated myth is that IQ and crime can be better associated with social class than race. This is another common myth, understandably so. However, several studies across the decades, even some of the more recent ones still suggest that even when one accounts for economic factors, social factors, educational factors, parenting factors, etc. there are still is a gap that persists. There is quite a bit of scientific data to back it up, I will post additional charts and the studies that back them up.

Chart

Source

Chart

Chart

Source

Chart

Source

You are certainly welcome to believe anything you'd like, but if you insist on holding pejorative views of others, don't be shocked when they don't react positively.

In terms of you claiming that the Democratic party leadership not reflecting the values of the Democratic electorate - you are correct. Democratic leaders are considerably more liberal and progressive than the general public at large. Again, the whole thing that started this conversation we're having is me pointing out the election results, which clearly shows this issue.

I clearly understand how you get to that condition. Thanks to The Big Sort, lefties in big emerald blue cities almost can't help but fall into group-think. While suburban and rural Democratic activists are stuck trying to explain to you that America isn't all a bunch of frustrated socialists.

In terms of Donald Trump, please understand that there is a huge white temper tantrum going on, as the 1950s economy, where if you were American, white, and male, you could get a job more or less straight out of highschool, even if you learned nothing there. The US hasn't fallen behind in the market, so much as the rest of the world has caught up, and succeeding if you're the "right" kind of person, isn't so easy anymore. Hence the tantrum.

Most of this tantrum exhibits itself as blatant white racism and nativism, but there is the leftist version of this as well. Scratch the surface of a so-called "millennial" supposedly angry at "capitalism", you find they're no more in favor of raising taxes on the rich than others. Measure 97 in particular, lost in Oregon because the public got convinced by the "rich plutocrats give people jobs and low prices as a gift - not because that's what the market will bear - so tax increases on them will all be passed on to you" canard. It's depressing.

Quite literally, in 150 yeas, no non-incumbent Democratic party candidate has ever followed a Democratic President. This is not due to "incompetence", it's due to the fact that 25% of the public always just votes against the president's party no matter what. It is generally true for Republicans as well, with the exception of Reagan, who successfully convinced the public to shift dramatically to the right.

The voters, mind you. Not the leadership.

No. Democrats are not socialists. We worship neither at the altar of "free markets" nor "government everything". Both concentrate power in the hands of a few, which leads inevitably to authoritarianism. We happen to be pulling in the same direction as socialists - advocating for more government control of completely out of control crony-capitalism and plutocracy that the GOP espouses. But we also see the lessons of socialist corrupt fascism, and don't want that either.

Sure, friend

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion. Source:http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences. Source:http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

Diversity increases social adversity. Source:http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health. Source:http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnic diversity harms health for Hispanics and Blacks. Source:http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group. Source:http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment. Source:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
Source:http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf#page=2

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities. Source:https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health. Source: https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

In America, more diverse cities have more segregation. Source:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. Source:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10464-013-9608-0

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality. Source:http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar. Source:http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n%202005-1.pdf

Borders, not multiculturalism, reduce intergroup violence. Source:http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409

Diversity reduces charity and volunteering. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

People who live in diverse communities rather than homogenous ones are poorer and less educated. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Black people trust their neighbors less than do White people. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Spanish speakers trust their neighbors less than do English speakers. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Asians trust their neighbors less than do White people. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Ethnically diverse workplaces have lower cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover. Source:http://jom.sagepub.com/content/23/3/239.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc

Ethnic diversity reduces social trust. Source:http://www.nber.org/papers/w5677

Ethnic diversity among members of the same race reduces infrastructure quality, charity, and loan repayment. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Diversity of any sort makes people more likely to defect in game theoretic scenarios. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Homogeneous military units have less desertion than diverse units. Source: http://www.nber.org/papers/w8627

Diversity correlates with low GDP. Source:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

Ethnic homogeneity correlates with strong democracy. Source:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

Genetic diversity causes societal conflict. Source:https://www.nber.org/papers/w21079

Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion. Source:http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/08/20/esr.jcv081.full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin. Source:http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-Whites. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin. Source:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational. Source: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

Ethnocentrism is biological in origin and a superior evolutionary strategy to altruism. Source:http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Humans are more altruistic to individuals who they are more closely related to. Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17456276

People subconsciously prefer those who are genetically similar to them for biologically rational reasons.
Source:http://www.psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Genetic%20Similarity%201989.pdf

Kinship between members of an ethnic group is greater than expected. Source: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.372.1009

>They also assume that if we were taxed less that we would give more, which isn't necessarily the case, plus we already have charitable donations accounted for in our tax code.

To your first point, I'm reading a book on this right now, Who Really Cares?. It's fascinating and it basically says that, for people of a certain type (he posits religious people, I would argue it could be extended to married families in general), the less they are taxed the more they will give in charity.

What exactly do you mean by "we already have charitable donations accounted for in our tax code?" I assume you're referring to deductions here. The truth is they arent entirely accounted for at all...yes you're allowed to deduct upto 50% of your contribution base (look at 1(G)), and they don't give an incentive to donate per se, it just means that you can give the money to an organization that isn't the government.

The true question is, if there are organizations that can provide services more efficiently than the government (I completely agree with your last paragraph), why don't we let them, and then put the saved money towards other useful things?

Sit down and give this book a read.

From a Salon.com article on the book:
>Ultimately, Female Chauvinist Pigs want power. They equate power with being like men, and being liked by men. They're the kind of girl who's always felt more comfortable with boys, who doesn't really like other girls. Raunch is one way for them to gain access to that circle of men and to separate themselves from other women. Annie, for instance, used to enjoy Howard Stern because "it's humor masking a pretty woman-hating thing -- which I've got a good amount of in me, I guess, because I take pleasure in it."
>
>"Yeah, we're all women, but are we supposed to band together?" asks Anyssa. "Hell, no. I don't trust women."
>
>Yet as Levy points out, being the exception that proves the rule -- the girl who gets raunch, who laughs at Howard Stern -- just means the rules are still intact. As long as "acting like a man" is valued, acting like a woman will be devalued. And regardless of how you understand gender, being a woman -- having breasts, bleeding once a month -- will be a handicap.

An anti-government book which paints the state as oppressive and inherently against freedom, as well as an overall negative force for the well-being of the nation.

The Mises Institute (an offshoot of the Cato Institute) is behind it, which advocates a rather unique form of Libertarian principles, at times critical of democracy for pandering to voters and starting wars. They have some reasonable points on the flaws of captialism, but their solution of an anarcho-capitalist state is a stretch.

They believe that everything is better off privately funded. It is like an anti-utopic ideal: great for those who end up at the top, not so much for those who don't.

Someone who buys into the criticisms presented in Anatomy of a State would reasonably buy into the view that the FCC should not require ISP regulation to restrict their ability to throttle, set up premium plans, and essentially pick apart their customers while maintaining a monopoly and preventing competitors from entering the fold.

It's worth reading into the benefits that the state has provided us (reviews on Amazon, ironically enough):

https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-State-Murray-Rothbard/product-reviews/1607967723/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

Also: opening up space and providing methodological instruments to allow for the academic study of men and masculinities - something that wasn't even on the horizon until early 3rd wavers rolled onto the scene.

If you're a dude looking for what the 3rd wave has done for men, I'd say that's a pretty big check mark right there.

Here are some resources for you to look at, if you're interested:

1. Masculinities, by R.W. Connell
   
2. The Men and the Boys, by R.W. Connell
   
3. Men's Lives, edited by Michael Kimmel and Michael Messner
   
4. Men and Masculinities, a peer-reviewed academic journal devoted entirely to the examination of men and men's lives.
   
5. Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions, by Lisa Wade and Myra Marx Ferree. Features a whole lot of discussion about men and masculinities
   
   This is just the tip of the iceberg of academic research on men and men's lives, and the overwhelming majority of it is a direct result of the revolutions in feminist thought brought forth by what we now think of as 3rd wave feminists.
   
   Now bear in mind that this is all academic stuff, but think about what that means for a moment: each semester, tens of thousands of students from all over the world, are asked to think critically and sociologically (or anthropologically or psychologically, whatever your preferred brand happens to be) about men, men's lives, and the issues facing men and boys today. The textbook I'm currently working on has a whole chapter that focuses on the challenges young men and boys face in North American schools, and the textbook I'm using to teach a sociology of gender course this year devotes about half of its space to examinations of men of all shapes, sizes, orientations, and expressions. That's huge. That's really huge. It's huge because action - and activism - need to be grounded in knowledge, and that's what 3rd wave feminists have helped to provide; knowledge of the unique and often serious challenges facing men and boys today.
   
   So that's what 3rd wave feminism has done for men and boys in academia. I'm sure there are resources around online that can help expand on this.

What you're ignoring is that the gravest insults under which you suffer are perpetrated by those authorities you deem "insufficient". Petty slights in everyday life pale in insignificance compared to the systemic crimes against your rights by the powerful (and are in fact to a large extent caused by these systemic frustrations), and a system like this would do nothing but grant them unprecedented powers to expand these crimes.



Want some literature? Begin with the obvious, Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World. Next, read up on complex systems theory, maybe take a course or at least have a look through some of the videos here. Having some insight into behavioural economics and power dynamics is very useful.

Then read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, and then Necessary Illusions by the same Chomsky ("Understanding Power - The Essential Chomsky" is also a good, but long, one) for an overview of the mentioned systemic crimes by those in power, and for a general understanding of how power operates on large scales. Many will discount Chomsky due to his political leanings, I think that's a huge error. The way he argues and presents relies heavily on actual examples and real-world comparisons, and these are useful even if you fundamentally disagree with his political stance (I personally belong on the left of the spectrum, but I do not subscribe to his anarcho-libertarianism or anarcho-syndicalist stances). I also recommend "Austerity - The History of a Dangerous Idea" by economist Mark Blyth for this purpose.

Finally, Extra Credits has a good introduction to the concept of gamification with the playlist here. At the end, see this video for an introduction to the actual Sesame Credits system in the gamification perspective.

The field is inherently cross-disciplinary, and "specialisation" in the field is almost a misnomer since the only way to get there, really, is to have a broad (if not deep) understanding of multiple fields, including psychology, pedagogy, linguistics, game design theory, design theory in general, economics, management and leadership theory, complex systems and network analysis, and now it seems politics as well. Some gamification specialists operate in much narrower fields and so do not need this broad an approach (generally, most people in the field operate in teams that contain most of this knowledge), and some of the fields incorporate aspects from the others so you won't have to explicitly study all of them (pedagogy, for example, is in many ways a branch of applied psychology, and game design theory must include lessons on psychology and complex systems).

Edit: Added Amazon links to the mentioned books.

I didn't realize I had to do your homework for you. This was the top result of a google search for "shaker heights sociology study schools". When I saw this study last it was in article format but I am not surprised the author wrote a book about it.

Anyways, you are remembering the study incorrectly. It was a study of middle class black families in comparison to middle class whites within the same community. He found that the white parents were significantly more likely to preach the value of education and homework and hold their children responsible when they performed poorly academically, whereas the reverse was true with the black parents. They did little to reinforce the importance of school or homework and blamed the teachers/schools when their children did poorly. So yes, actually, it addresses this point directly.

Look, I do not care to "convert" you. I couldn't care less if you believe what I am saying. The link to the book is of zero help to you as you are not going to order it and read it and you have demonstrated an unwillingness to search for any evidence that is contrary to your claim (unless it is spoon fed to you), so what do you want? Shall I xerox the relevant pages of the article (assuming I ever find my copy) and mail them to you? Why is that my responsibility? I have told you that there is evidence to support my claim, I gave you a really good jumping off point, and you do not want to do any work. Fine. Again, I don't care. But do not make the mistake of assuming that your laziness or my apathy is reason enough to continue believing you are right about this.

This is, of course, brilliant and practical. But, I will point out that it isn't new. This, after all, the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the approach to progress espoused by old school liberalism, from J.S. Mills to Jonathan Rauch.

The idea that calmly listening and addressing issues as a better approach than forming groups that fight each other is also consistent with ingroup/outgroup psychology, particularly modeled by Realistic (Group) Conflict Theory. Once you take away the idea that people belong to an identity group, and are just individuals, and that you aren't a member of a different group (tribe) in combat with their group (tribe), people can talk and resolve differences.

But yes, it takes patience and integrity. And you have those like few I've ever seen. That is awesome and inspiring!

If you have doubts about why the state is so bad, and want to understand more what the state is Anatomy of the State by Murray Tothbard is a great read, got me into libertarianism in general

If you are looking for more current anarcho-capitalist theory and it’s logistics, a great read is The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman.

Anatomy of the state is a great introduction of about ~50 or so pages while The Machinery of freedom goes into a lot more detail, ~350 pages and is the book I would choose.

Hope this helps!

They had the story from an NSA informant (actually a FISA court lawyer). They were told by the Bush administration that "the terrorists would win" if they published it, so they buried it.

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/05/319233332/new-york-times-editor-losing-snowden-scoop-really-painful

If you want a better idea of the timeline on it, Frontline covered it pretty well.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/

If you want a better idea why the New York Times would cow-tow to the White House like that, Manufacturing Consent does a pretty good job of explaining the forces at play here (access, flack, anti-terror hysteria).

The best book ever I think for trans is "Trans bodies trans selves" http://www.amazon.com/Trans-Bodies-Selves-Transgender-Community/dp/0199325359
Its kind of like the bible of transition.

If you think he is still suicidal there is the Trevor line http://www.thetrevorproject.org/section/donate?gclid=COKv-OPRxsQCFdcSgQod5mkAdA
There number is 1-866-488-7386 and you can call text or chat with them.

The following sub reddits are good r/ftm r/asktransgender r/transeducate and r/TransCommunity

For his parents http://transparenthood.net/

Sorry I don't have more for you. I know he's family to you and Im sure you would never consider otherwise but thank you for helping him. Thank you for taking the time out to prepare. The next year is going to be really hard, probably the hardest in his life and he's going to need every bit of support from everywhere he can get it.
While I'm not FTM I am MTF and if you or he want to talk or need some general pointers Im happy to help just shoot me a pm.

I have many gay friends, so when I first shifted from an ideological libertinism to traditional value set, I was having trouble reconciling my views. Isn't the right supposed to hate gays? I am against cultural degeneracy, and homosexuality seems degenerate, so what does one make of it? Furthermore, the science clearly shows that homosexuality, whether an aesthetic preference or
"sexual orientation," is generally not a choice (though there is nuance).

Reading The Way of Men by Jack Donavan, who is gay, helped to clear this up for me. He argues that what we need to fight is not homosexuality, but the men who work to upend and destroy traditional masculine values (strength, honor, courage, mastery). The two heavily overlap, especially in urban circles, which leads to the association, but this still leaves a quite significant percentage of honorable gay men.

Interestingly, a counterculture is emerging among male homosexuals to distance themselves from their peers. They've been coopted by the Left, willingly, in exchange for sinecures like gay "marriage." This is what happens when you sell your soul; you no longer get to determine how it is used, and they are now open to blowback. The risk is that the public will take back all of their gains and then some, which the gays with foresight recognize in leaving L-BT behind.

First appreciate the concept of the overton window. That political shifts are relative to the era they occur in. You do not suddenly go from an authoritarian theocracy to a progressive democracy over night. It's a gradual process sometimes spanning generations.

In the context of these internet communities. You create various sock puppet accounts to make it look as though the communities are more popular than they are. Then use those various accounts to normalize concepts. Spam racism. Downvote dissenting posts. Tell them it's just edgy humour and they need to stop being so uptight. Upvote other peoples accounts that adopt the behaviours your desire like parroting racism.

Over time through an instinctual desire for group conformity you end up with communities that are a mix of genuine racists and people who think racism is just a really funny joke. Now the actual brainwashing can begin. They are no longer repulsed by racism. It's just a joke. Nationalism is just memes. HAHA! They start posting more serious content. That another rape by a minority group occurred. That murderer is an immigrant. That the innocent kid who was murdered by police was really some kind of gangster thug. You still keep pumping memes because you want to your community to grow. But now you start posting links to discussions on other sites and forums. And your racists and trolls go and normalise such views in the real world. Imitating the behaviour they have been programmed with.

When governments do it. It's called psychological warfare or psyops. This is carried out by many nations. Russia's internet research agency is a noteworthy one. There have been reports of the Isreali Defence Force posting pro-israel propaganda on forums. There were even allegedly grants given to students that took part in such operations. And don't take this as some liberal lefty getting butt hurt over trump. Or some casual antisemitism. Every major power is involved in this shit. We are. America is. China is. India is. Everybody is. Maybe not targetting us specifically all the time, but you'd better believe when they see an opportunity like brexit they seize it.

Then there's civilian groups that tend to use it to secure funding for their movements. Like how the far-right use various chat servers to coordinate misinformation.

And that leaves us in our current predicament. There's no way of telling who is real, and who is a troll, or who is a part of a foreign intelligence community, or who is a sock puppet account for a political group trying to lobby support for their self-interested cause. When the fascists aren't boasting that they're printing their ideology on beermats it's a lot harder to know if they're really British.

For me. It's not about censoring anonymity. It's about creating verified communities.

Oh and I almost forgot. This isn't just limited to politics and hybrid warfare. It's also widely used by marketing firms. Google "influencer pricing".

Edit: Oh, a great book on the subject is Manufacturing Consent. Though this is more of a historical approach when such operations could only really be run by large media groups like newspapers, tv, and radio.

The speech codes enacted at certain colleges in the "PC nineties" have been revoked, largely for the best reason pointed out in Rauch's Kindly Inquisitors: nobody has a monopoly on knowing what's offensive, so the goal of "no hurt feelings" is unattainable. College campuses weren't looking to shut out odious speech, but to protect the feelings of certain people (and in doing so happened to shut out odious speech).

As far as workplace speech goes, I'm inclined to believe that speech that advances business is always preferred over all other kinds. I fail to see how incendiary commentary in the workplace would benefit anyone's business, and more importantly it's censure is not the same thing as being told "you can't express that opinion." It's more like "you can't express that opinion, in this building, 9-5, and keep this job for which we pay you our money." Which is really applied everywhere; you can exercise your free speech rights in a buddy's house, and find yourself thrown out for being a dick. It's not an overarching, rigidly enforced political correctness that encourages this kind of behavior, but simply getting along with one another and, in the case of business, trying to turn a dollar into two dollars. Even the most racially prejudiced car salesman turns it off when someone of the lesser race(s) comes to buy a car.

As a staunch defender of total free speech (including the neo-nazis, WBC, the Klan, etc) I frankly find the current trends encouraging, not discouraging. Unless I'm missing the point here.

That paragraph you quoted has it exactly right.

In a truly free society people should be able to say what they like regardless of the offense it might cause. This inevitably means that you have to put up with a lot of rubbish at times.

"Racism" and "inflammatory speech" are things that mean different things to different people and some people would like to pass laws using these terms to muzzle people who's opinions they don't share.

If you're really interested in the debate I recommend reading "Kindly Inquisitors". It's only a short book and it sums up the argument for free speech well.

http://www.amazon.com/Kindly-Inquisitors-Attacks-Free-Thought/dp/0226705765+

Here's an interview with the author:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFVRRP-J9mI

>Liberals are more intellectually enlightened and realize that race and ethnicity are social constructs

“It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.” Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Race is biologically real and represents “genetic clusters” of variation. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract


Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.” Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race. Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin. Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-Whites. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin. Source: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational. Source: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

Ethnocentrism is biological in origin and a superior evolutionary strategy to altruism. Source: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

People subconsciously prefer those who are genetically similar to them for biologically rational reasons. Source: http://www.psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Genetic%20Similarity%201989.pdf

The rest, blah blah, Trump voters are le stupid and Clinton voters enlightened, as posted in liberal rags. Neat. I wonder why Clinton won handily with illiterates and Trump with higher income groups? I guess because obviously getting a bunch of useless degrees means you're smarter and so much better than the people actually making money.

Also what's interesting is all these sooper smart college kids who say the right things about race are secretly as racist as anyone else:

https://m.phys.org/news/2016-08-bias-disgust-mixed-race-couples.html

The fact is religious people do more for others: Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compasionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters

Why don't you point out to us the great works of missionary charity undertaken by atheists throughout the world that merit support?

>Promoting diversity if only for the sake of promoting diversity is recognized objectively as an inherent good. Being exposed to a diversity of people and ideas helps widen your own perspective and in general be a more aware and thoughtful citizen.

• More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
  http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/
  
• Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
  http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
  
• Diversity increases social adversity.
  http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
  
• A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
  http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
  
• Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03
  
• Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03
  
• Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
  http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full
  
• Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.
  http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract
  
• Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.
  http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787
  
• Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full
  
• Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
  http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf
  
• Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
  http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
  
• Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.
  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6
  
• Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
  http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf
  
• Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.
  https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf
  
• Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
  https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors
  
• Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation.
  http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/
  
• Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.
  http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091
  
• It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.
  http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html
  
• Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.
  http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
  
• Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.
  http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
  
• States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.
  http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
  
• There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.
  http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n2005-1.pdf

Plato didn't want freedom. He envisaged a world ruled by philosopher kings who, by their dint of their intellectual superiority, could determine what was right for everyone.

The most famous argument against Plato was put forth by Karl Popper, although I know it from reading Jon Rauch's book on free-speech, 'Kindly Inquisitors'.

To summarize the anti-Platonist response of Popper and Rauch- Nobody, absolutely nobody, should be given final say in an argument, because no individual is capable of infallibility. Our best hope for progress is to maximize freedom of speech, even though this will inevitably result in much bad speech. (From this perspective, it's a healthy sign that we have such lurid tabloid papers. It means that freedom of speech is still alive.)

(I recently read 'Plato at the Googleplex' by the philosopher and writer Rebecca Goldstein who thinks that Plato was maligned by Popper. If you're interested, that's also a book which is worth reading.)

In Search of Respect is often used in modern cultural anthropology classes as a first hand look at the culture and life of drug dealers and associated characters. It's a bit dry in some points, but it's pretty detailed. The author depicts things sort of 'from the ground up', as he slowly gains the trust of the neighborhood, and access to more influential figures in the trade.

I'd recommend Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs. It's an interesting view of how women are objectifying each other in the way men used to/still do. I also really enjoyed The Beauty Myth.

Thanks for joining the feminist side =D

EDIT: Spelling

There's a great anthology of Rousseau's political writings that comes up in an Amazon search of "Rousseau". Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a great book to understand why there might be a problem in establishing a society on pure reason and the progress of science (like we currently have). Locke's two treaties of government are his best works. Also, Descartes is great.

Beware, reading these books is not going to be done in a month or so. It takes years. As a result of this, I advise you to start off with the book The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom. It's an absolutely devastating critique of modern America and its so-called "values". Basically, he chronicles the development of American thought from the Enlightenment to the modern day and shows that much of our language such as "value relativism"/"Multiculturalism", or "I just need to find myself" come from German philosophy which is deeply antithetical to Enlightenment ideals. If you ever had a sense that our Democracy is eroding from the inside out, and much of what we see if a result of the weakness of the people, this book will make a lot of sense to you. If you ever thought that our embrace of multiculturalism led to us "losing ourself" more so than "finding others", this book will make sense. If you enjoy that book, you can decide for yourself if "going to the sources" is worth it for you.

Cites you want?

There have been many studies done on the schools in Shaker Heights, Ohio, an affluent (generally middle class to very wealthy), racially integrated suburb of Cleveland. Even in one of the best funded districts in the state, black students perform worse than white students.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/csd/summary/v044/44.6jackson.html

Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb presents an interesting departure from traditional studies of the Black and White achievement gap. A trio of elements made this study uniquely different. First, the school district is considered to be one of the best in the nation. Second, Shaker Heights is an upper middle-class suburb with a median family income of $66,000. Third, Shaker Heights is a highly educated community with an estimated 61% of the residents over 25 years old holding at least a bachelor's degree. The presence of these three elements, which are traditionally used to explain the achievement gap, adds a perplexing dynamic to the research contained in this book.

The gap in academic achievement between Black and White students in Shaker Heights led to the fundamental question that guided this research: Why do Black students, who seemingly have the appropriate conditions of life that should lead to academic success, still perform far below their White counterparts? Interestingly, the academic performance of Blacks in Shaker Heights was above the state and national average for Black students.

A few more cites:

http://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X (considered the most authoritative study)
http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=etd_hon_theses (pdf)
http://generaltoolbox.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/the_canary_in_the_mine.pdf (pdf)
http://annenberginstitute.org/pdf/cj_acheivement_gap.pdf(pdf)


For several years, I lived in South Euclid, a lower middle- to upper middle-class, stably racially integrated suburb not too far from Shaker Heights. There was the same gap between black students and white students, with special programs at the high school targeted specifically towards black students to ensure they graduate.

http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/class-action/Content?oid=1502634

TL/DR: the district didn't succumb to the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Meanwhile, district officials, led by Superintendent Bill Zelei, refused to let daunting national trends discourage them. Half of black male students drop out anyway. Why bother trying? They didn't ship the new arrivals to special ed or let them coast in dumbed-down classes. They didn't pull money out of the high school and into majority-white elementary schools. They kept the honors courses, the Japanese language instruction, the art classes, and the drama club.

> 'I would prefer if you made a note of when you are going to say a particular thing'

This is the absolute wrong onus. From the point of view of the person making the request, it seems on the surface to be reasonable. However, from the point of view of the person making the speech/content/art the logical conclusion is seven billion different "reasonable" points of view about notices for specific content. The correct onus is for the reader/lister/viewer to be mindful of offensive content, and act appropriately for themselves when that content presents itself. Anything else is absolutely bonkers.

>This world of 'ideal' free speech you are discussing does not exist.

Agreed. It is the ideal goal, however. A goal which permits the silencing of unpopular opinions is oppressive in nature, and contrary to liberty.

>Ironically, the judgment that "all speech should be permitted regardless of content" is also a false moral absolute - it reflects a particular cultural interpretation of 'freedom' that is not necessarily universal to every place and time.

It may not describe the realities of a given location or time, but it is the best ideal. Liberty is superior to oppression.

>Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is actually oppressed - do you really have 'free speech' when your voice is drowned out

History has demonstrated that your claim is false, by virtue the fact that popular opinion is where it is, and is moving ever more towards greater acceptance. What else has gotten us here except free speech by minority activists?

>'shit, dude, this is offensive, please stop doing that'.

This is absolutely not what they are doing. They are demanding self-censorship over a perceived slight where none exists. They are absolutely the ones who are shutting down speech.

>There is a very valid and nuanced discussion to be had about free speech and its limitations, and I feel that your perspective is too heavily founded on absolutes to adequately reflect that nuance.


At least you have avoided the "fire in a crowded theater" fallacy. Make sure you don't fall into that fallacy's trap by conflating the necessity of absolute freedom of speech with actions and their consequences.

Making a comment on twitter is speech. Publishing a game is an action (and also speech). Losing sales because of offensive content is a consequence. Furthermore, it's the most appropriate consequence to objectionable speech. Demanding self-censorship, especially to sooth a fragile ego, is fucking abhorrent.


e:

> Common ethical standards (by 'common', I mean generally shared by people in that particular cultural space and time) and common decency exist. I am not presuming a universal morality, but rather a time/culture-specific ethics

How do you presume those mores changed over time? They did not change because the cultural majority enjoyed a monopoly on what was decent and what was not. See Rauch: “A liberal society stands on the proposition that we should all take seriously the idea that we might be wrong. This means we must place no one, including ourselves, beyond the reach of criticism; it means that we must allow people to err, even where the error offends and upsets, as it often will.”

I'm not sure your hypothesis is backed by the evidence. People are plenty different, not just due to cultural differences, but also due to basic differences in their personalities (which are largely determined by genes).

Moreover, to say that Ice-T's agreement with Rush on the issue of gun control is evidence that we're all simiilar s spurious. Let's see how they compare on other issues? These two are oil and water. That they agree on one issue at all is surprising.

Edit: This is a great read on the issue http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded/dp/0547237723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343416477&sr=8-1&keywords=the+big+sort

The Great Good Place was a great read on the topic. The first place I remember reading about the Third Place and was fascinated by the topic.

I'll have to pick up Suburban Nation, as it seems to be an interesting take on the subject.

About culture? Anthropology may be the area you want to check out. It's a very complex topic, but has loads of interesting reports on marginalized cultures within America. The Navajo probably have had a few ethnographies already done for them.

One of my favorite that you may find interesting is In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. Oddly, it really reminded me of where I grew up.

There is a lot of research going on with organizations and journals dedicated to the subject.
American Psychological Association: Division 51 Society for Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity. This is probably your best resource. They have a page dedicated Research Briefs. Their Div 51 Journal - Psychology of Men & Masculinity will provide a thorough review of research published in the area.
There is also the Men and Masculinities Journal, the
Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality, and the
Journal of Men's Studies. I'm sure that I am missing some but these are the ones that I know of. You could probably also find a text book that covers a lot of these ideas. I think the standard is APA Handbook of Men and Masculinities, Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities, and Masculinities 2nd Edition.

If you find anything you think interesting please post it over to /r/manfeelings. I'm collecting interesting articles and pieces over there.

Bullet three is exactly backward. Shaker Heights high school used to be ranked in the 90th percentile, but as the mix changed to the one you quote, the Percentage of Students Passing All Four Parts of the Ohio Graduation Test dropped to 67.4%, the high school stopped being one of the most desirable, and white flight has and is occurring.

I agree with you that Clevelanders do NOT fear integrated education, but people value education and will chase these rankings. So if an influx of black students changes a highschool's pass rate, you will see white flight based on the change in status of the highschool. It's also worth noting that the high desirability of these schools is a draw which creates demand for real-estate and as the rankings decline, people will abandon the community as it is a precursor to declining home values, which is where most of the middle-class has the majority of their wealth, exasperating the "white flight" scenario.

There was a Black American Students in An Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement written about the phenomenon.

The author John U. Ogbu was ostricized by the black community because of it.

Sure. I would argue that those stereotypes of sexual prowess and masculinity are very clear examples of how these standards can hurt men. I don't believe there is such a thing as 'perfect privilege' either. There is only more or less in relation to others.

Just like female beauty standards can keep all women, regardless of appearance, from experiencing their true potential in different ways, standards of masculinity inhibit men the same way.

Men are often robbed of emotional support by these unreasonable standards of masculinity. Just like women, men often feel deep, deep shame for not measuring up to these standards. Conversely, the men who do live up to these standards often live in fear of losing that status. This manifests as the stereotypical jock beating up the weak kid. It's the male analog to the thin girl who is constantly afraid of becoming fat.

Personally I think that's why so many male Redditors feel so angered by being called out for dog-piling inappropriate jokes and catcalling women in Reddit threads. They are essentially screaming "Don't you see? This is the only emotional outlet I have!" And they feel that to be true in a profound way.

I don't say that to make excuses for the behavior, but I can see it as an explantation for why so many otherwise decent guys do this.

Have you ever heard of RW Connell's theory of Multiple Masculinities? Like I said above, I'm not an expert, and I've only begun my reading on the subject, but her concept of varying types of masculine ideals makes a lot of sense to me.

here is her book

a jstor article

this looks like a good basic introduction

> deciding to be a part of society means that you agree to be taxed for the common good.

No it doesn't. I'm part of society and I don't agree to be taxed for the common good.

I don't even agree that it is for the common good (but even if it were, I'm not agreeing to pay).

>> Republicans, for example, give a lot more of their own money to charity than Democrats.

> lol, Source?

Uh, reality?

How about this? Here for a summary.

It's pretty much a commonplace now. Conservatives give about one-third more of their income than liberals.

Interesting question. Off the top of my head, I would say that makes you not so much 'a feminist' as 'a person whose viewpoint has been influenced by feminism'. Personally, I don't think you can really call yourself a feminist if you don't believe in patriarchy, as in the idea that women are historically oppressed as a class, but that is a big discussion and not one I intend to get into here.

By the way, you say you 'really don't believe in a contemporary patriarchy' - what about the likes of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan? Is patriarchy not expressed through the machismo of certain Latin American culture and households? If it was considered relatively normal for Latino men to beat their wives and have control over the household finances, (that's a big 'if', I know), would that not be considered a form of patriarchy? You might like to take a look at In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, which could be said to portray a patriarchal society, in terms of the social norms and household arrangements of the subjects. Obviously, it depends a bit on what you mean by 'patriarchal', but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to refer to these families in that way.

I think what you posted is a really good start if it's specific to your area. For additional resources, this website has a lot of info for providers on prescribing T (http://transhealth.ucsf.edu/trans?page=guidelines-masculinizing-therapy) & the WPATH Standards of Care would be a good one (https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc), but I know there's some disagreement about some of its recommendations. The book Trans Bodies, Trans Selves (https://www.amazon.com/Trans-Bodies-Selves-Transgender-Community/dp/0199325359) is a really good comprehensive overview & would be a great place for a psychiatrist who wants to learn more to start. It's basically a textbook but costs around $30 on Amazon, they keep the price low to make it as accessible as possible.

Side note that didn't get addressed by Dr. Nerdlove- The LW's family was not a feminist family even though her mother was the breadwinner. An abusive relationship cannot be feminist in nature because abuse (from any party in a relationship) goes against the very heart of feminism.

There's some great research being done by academics in gender studies on toxic masculinity and if anyone is interested in some reading material, there are some great folks like R. W. Connell, Michael Kimmel, or Tony Porter that might be helpful.

How old is she?

I haven't read it, but this looks interesting: Trans Bodies, Trans Selves

Or, if you want to go for clothing, opaque black tights are easy to fit, go with everything, have a place in all but the butchest wardrobes, and nobody ever has too many.

You're awesome.

Ah, I study this literature. First, go read Matthew Gutmann's everything. Then, read all his articles, but especially 'Trafficking in Men' in Annual Review (1997).

Secondly, read a good part of RW Connell's Masculinities, which is theory heavy but very, very good.

More ethnographically focused work is [The Cassowary's Revenge] (http://www.amazon.com/Cassowarys-Revenge-Masculinity-Society-Sexuality/dp/0226819515/ref=sr_1_14?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344394669&sr=1-14&keywords=masculinities) and Dwight MacDonald's work in Palestine. That should be enough for now

Now is an EXCELLENT time to question your dogmatic commitment to nonviolence.

May I suggest Peter Gelderloos' excellent How Nonviolence Protects the State?

Or, perhaps, Ward Churchill's Pacifism as Pathology?

> I am male, and to cut a long story short, yes i am 'particularly masculine' by the usual metrics.

Ah right, well this is all very easy for you to say then, isn't it? Strikes me you are talking from a position of privilege in that respect.

> Can you answer the part about who your favourite articles were to teach on? I'm quite curious!

I have no idea why that would be. What possible difference could it make to you? It sounds to me like you are testing me.

Anyway, if you really want to read some sociology, here are a few suggestions...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Intimacy-Personal-Relationships-Modern-Societies/dp/0745615740

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Managed-Heart-Commercialization-Human-Feeling/dp/0520272943

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonaldization

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Search-Respect-Structural-Analysis-Sciences/dp/0521017114

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish

I will try and add some more if I think of anything, but TBH I think you are just trying to test me anyway. For some reason redditors often seem to be incredulous that someone could actually do a sociology degree and a post-grad, and go on to work in teaching, though it is actually a pretty humble accomplishment AFAIAC.

Edit: one of my favourite sociology books when I was an undergrad was Scotland the Brand.

I'm quite into reading politics related books so if you like I can recommend a couple that I'd buy myself :P

This book by Naomi Klein is FANTASTIC

I quite liked the look of this one as well

A really interesting book on Political Theory

If he doesn't like Chomsky, he doesn't like politics!

Can never have too much Chomsky!

Maybe a bit o' Lincoln too?

Awesome, and congrats on all the work you're doing! Good luck moving; I always find that process really stressful, but then settling into a new place is great.

Self-Reliance really helped me out early in transition, and so did the book Nobody Passes, in case you want to check it out once you're in your new place.

Here are some examples of how diversity lowers quality of life for everyone. "Diversity is a strength" is a lie and an empty platitude that's been pushed on the country for the last couple decades and people now regurgitate it mindlessly because they've heard it so many times. In reality, homogeneity is strength, diversity is a weakening agent.

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity increases social adversity. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust. http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities. https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health. https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational. http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you. http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Hmm ok I'm glad you clarified. I can see where you are coming from, but I just see it differently in that, American culture tends to put too much emphasis on the individual without considering the strutural. Since I studied social science (if you couldn't tell!) I changed a lot of my views, about the value of work (in regards of "skilled" and "unskilled labor), about oppertunity in America and about how larger structual issues creates a direct impact on people's lives and how we aren't willing to even look at those options to change (God forbid if we do anything against the mighty capitalism!).

A book that really stuck with me, because of the quality of writing, research and the insights it has, was In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. Also people will give you funny looks for reading it!

http://www.amazon.com/In-Search-Respect-Structural-Analysis/dp/0521017114

The Way of Men by Jack Donovan.

It explores masculinity from a perspective of evolutionary psychology from Hunter/Gatherer societies and why certain masculine traits are valued.

After reading it its quite easy to look at how men interact and understand why they do the things they do, and how and why certain things are respected among them.

E. D. Hirsch's Cultural Literacy often gets attacked as being too conservative. I haven't actually read it to give my own opinion, but that's the reputation.

Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind might interest you, too. Bloom was definitely conservative, but the book curiously gets a certain amount of play among leftist thinkers.

It's not about Stonewall, but Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940 explores a lot of interesting stuff most people don't know about. I took Chauncey's queer history class at Yale. It was amazing.

As for trans* stuff, I'd recommend a lot of theory. Judith Butler mainly. I'd also recommend Nobody Passes: Rejecting the Rules of Gender and Conformity.

> By living in the same place where there are role models of people who care about the property, and the property itself is maintained to very high standards, you create an atmosphere that demands respect.

Nope, there is tons of data showing that this is demonstrably not true. That is exactly how people theorized Section 8 would work, and it hasn't: the worst drag people down, the best get the hell out and form their own communities.

I realize you're in the ivory tower. I hope that you'll actually listen to what the real landlords are telling you here.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Here is one of the go-to works that really got this conversation going a few years back. And it's not "unlikely" at all, in a linguistic sense, for labels--especially those that refer to really broad things imbued with social and political import--to be multivalent, to have different definitions for different individuals, or to just be really vaguely defined. For example, go ask a hundred people to talk for a few minutes about what "freedom" means to them, or "America," or "education," etc. Cultures (and certain groups in the culture) sometimes have a vested interest in restricting the definitions of various terms, and this masks their true variety. For instance, many people believe that there is only one definition of "American," and might become angry if you explain that there are various ways to define that term.

"Masculinity" is very much like the examples above. I think some examples will demonstrate:

• In the domain of "grooming," a person can be very "masculine" by smelling awful and never shaving his face or trimming his hair, looking like a tidy lumberjack with a bit of stubble, looking crisp and James-Bond-like in a tuxedo, being perfumed and manicured all metrosexual, having just the right amount of rumple and scruff in a hipster way, etc.
  
• In the domain of "sexual fidelity," you can be "masculine" by being unfailingly faithful to your current partner, by sleeping with everything your junk is compatible with, by practicing "serial monogamy" with many partners in a row, and probably some other things.
  
• In the domain of "parenting styles," you can be "masculne" by being extremely patient and engaged with your child, by stoically modeling a keep-your-mouth-shut-and-get-things-done ethos, by being a cold and harsh authoritarian drill sergeant, by yelling and hitting your child, etc.
  
  All those examples are "masculine," and they don't all work together. You might say that some are more masculine than others. I'd say "prove it." I've met people who have very different core beliefs about what it is to be a man, or a "good man," or a "natural man," etc. (we can't even agree on that--what "masculine" actually refers to).
  
  There is a concept sometimes called "hegemonic masculinity," and I think it refers to what many people sometimes call "traditional masculinity." It looks a lot like the Hispanic concept of machismo. It is not a nice way of being a man; it usually includes dominating others, constantly being prepared for violence, being sexually promiscuous to a pretty riduculous degree, etc. It's not called "traditional masculinity" as much in scholarly circles, I think, for a good reason: it's no more "traditional" than any other conceptualization of masculinity; in the (admittedly Western) cultures I have experience with, there have always been multiple masculinities. They vary by geographic region, social stratum, personality type, family background, religious expression, ethnic heritage, education level, and probably more stuff. In fact, I think masculinities even vary within individuals--we are a different kind of masculine (at least many of us) depending on the situation we are in, or the life tasks we're dealing with (e.g., finding a mate in our 20s versus raising children or building a career later).
  
  So OP's question can't be answered as asked, because there is not one thing that is "masculinity."

>The point is you made an assertion that something is a myth without any evidence whatsoever.

It's based on my anecdotal experience. Like I said already, the original claim is not supported by any hard date either. To draw a comparison, there are no studies proving that unicorns don't exist, but you wouldn't criticize me for saying that they don't. Therefore, I feel no need to apologize for making a strong claim - in either case.

>that moreover others are propounding the contrary position (which like I said I've never heard before).

Here.

There's a really good book called Nobody Passes. The basic idea is that ALL of us are trying to pass as something, and have fears about whether or not we're succeeding. Some of us are just attempting to pass on things that are more ... controversial, I suppose? I am not trans*, but I am a Lesbian married to a dude, I was raised Mormon, and I have always felt like I don't fit in anywhere. Reading the book was a great dose of solidarity for me, to know there were others out there who felt out of place.

>“It just seems that in our quest to be tolerant of everything, we’ve become intolerant to everything,”

>That is a fantastic line.

I highly recommend the book, "The Closing of the American Mind" by Allan Bloom. It was written some time ago, but it pretty much nails today's intellectual landscape. I think even he'd be shocked to see the trends taken to the highest degree in 2015.

EDIT for link: http://www.amazon.ca/Closing-American-Mind-Education-Impoverished/dp/1451683200

I've seen a handful of people say that this sort of academic content is only produced (or acceptable to produce) about white men. I'd like to note that cultural, anthropological and historical studies of specific demographics, especially groups of alienated men, are actually pretty common. Take this classic study about Kashmiri Jihadists, or this one about drug dealers in East Harlem or hell, this study of the changing mores and social expectations in samurai culture. In other words, studying the identity of a group of men who are finding their social status threatened, uncertain or rapidly changing is actually quite a common academic pursuit.

In academic contexts like this there are clear epistemological and ethical considerations to keep in mind. The first is that any study of a group of people, whoever they are, needs to engage with the voices, experiences and worldviews of those people in good faith. This doesn't mean agree with, or even have an overall positive view of them or their beliefs - see the studies about Kashmiri Jihadists or drug dealers above - but it does mean that the purpose should be to reach a kind of understanding of the way these people think and feel about their world. A course that talks about the experiences of white men, with an aim at looking at processes of anger or radicalisation, would almost certainly be approaching the issue from this angle. I don't see anything to indicate that this won't be the case.

From the responses I've seen, a lot of people imagine this course to basically be a semester long dunk-session on white dudes without any nuance. From where I stand it seems pretty clear this course is intended to deconstruct, understand and talk about the experiences and alienation of certain white men in the US and UK in the last 70 years.

I think, in 2019, most Westerners with eyeballs have realised that young white men are a demographic that is noticeably prone to radicalisation, extremism and alienation. I think it's inevitable that this will be a phenomenon that is increasingly discussed and researched in academic and public circles.

>It didn't really change anybody's mind, and one's view on it was 99% shaped by what they were already thinking.

These books are about why they think that way. Hillbilly Elegy is about communities (mainly the non-urban communities that gave Trump huge support) that feel left behind and the recent history and thinking of those groups. The Big Sort is about the homogenization of social groups and thinking in the US, leading to why people feel comfortable throwing "grenades". The Righteous Mind is a book on the psychology of morality and politics in the US and why the ideologies are so different.

Trump may have won big with white voters of all stripes, but he also did better among Latinos than Romney, so it's obvious that it isn't just "poor uneducated whites", but if people don't try to figure out why the division is so strong and where the other side is coming from, what chance do we have for uniting and restoration?

I live in the most liberal district in one of the most liberal cities in the US. I have no difficulty in understanding that perspective and its driving forces. The other view is not so well illuminated

Edit: though I shouldn't have said anything in the first place. This is the one place I can go to avoid all the cross-talk about politics and ideologies. I like all of you guys and our light conversations about shoes. I'd rather not ruin that for myself.

female chauvinist pigs is pretty good too. not too theoretical or deep but it captures modern american society pretty well.

Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:

Amazon Smile Link: http://smile.amazon.com/Pacifism-Pathology-Reflections-Struggle-America/dp/1904859186/ref=sr_1_1


|Country|Link|
|:-----------|:------------|
|UK|amazon.co.uk|
|Spain|amazon.es|
|France|amazon.fr|
|Germany|amazon.de|
|Japan|amazon.co.jp|
|Canada|amazon.ca|
|Italy|amazon.it|
|China|amazon.cn|




To help donate money to charity, please have a look at this thread.

This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting). The thread for feature requests can be found here.

I think you're confusing cause and effect.

The big thing that's happened in the last 30-40 years in American politics has been sorting. Look up The Big Sort.

Essentially, before 1965, you had lots of Southern Democrats who were more ideologically conservative and a smaller, but still significant number of Rockefeller Republicans in the North who were more ideologically liberal. The largest reason for congressional dysfunction is that increasingly representatives are more responsive to their constituents than before. This causes more gridlock, not less.

Now, you can argue that those constituents are frequently not thinking of their own best interests, but it's hard to make the case that in the vast majority of instances, congress is more responsive, not less.

> female feminist here in good faith to learn and add new perspective for the sake of the evolutionary and ecological principles of diversity

What? That sentence doesn't mean anything. I have a PhD lady, big words don't impress me, only meaning does.

Men have a gang mentality, always have, always will. Go read Jack Donovan's book "The Way of Men". That has nothing to do with individual agency. Individuals acting in concert still maintain their autonomy. It is only when others want to tell/shame them into behaving in particular ways (as feminists/SJWs/progressives like to do), that they become hypo-agents.

Actually, you make a great argument against feminism, ironically enough.

Lodge 49 S01E06 The Mysteries

We are somewhere between Albedo and Citrinitas, or the White Phase to the Yellow Phase. Larry's memory is heavily cast in yellow light, as is his room and upholstered chairs, even his shirt. Cinitras is when we change from the Moon to the Sun, from reflecting the light of others to becoming a source of light ourselves.

In the three Pillars of the Tree of Life, Severity, Mercy and Balance, Dud seems to be taking the path of Severity (which starts with passivity), Liz the Path of Mercy (which starts with taking action), and Ernie the Path of Balance (living in the here and now).

“He who thinks a fire, is a fire.” is a hex being cast by Wallis Smith onto child Larry. What a dickish thing to do to your girl-on-the-side’s son. In real lodges, a President only serves a one year term, to keep their heads from getting too swelled like this, and the officer’s line keeps moving people up so that will be many Past Presidents lying around to check the power of the current year’s one should he get out of line. Those Thanksgiving decorations, including the bark canoe, are pretty sweet tho.

“Except we’re the Lynx. Not the Masons. The Masons were wannabe Rosicrucians. And the Rosicrucians were a hoax that pretty much just got out of hand. You know, there's a really great essay by this British junkie--" There have been so many conjectures about the origins of Freemasonry by so many authors, all of whom contradict each other, that this essay of Duds could be hidden among any of the Prestonian Lectures, the hundreds of books published by Lewis Masonic, or since Scotland is part of Great Britain, it could be Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland’s Century. But we see Dud has taken seriously Blaise’s statement that he wouldn’t respect Dud if he didn’t put in the work and study necessary to earn becoming a Knight.

[Edit: Hat tip to /u/ficta, who saw the clue was in "British junkie", which I completely missed despite it being there in the closed captions. This makes the essay most likely Historico-Critical Inquiry Into the Origin of the Rosicrucians and the Freemasons by Thomas De Quincey. Warning: It has a wandering, fatiguing intro, just skip to Chapter 2. ]

“Who’s not afraid of the dark, Liz? At least it makes sense. You know what doesn’t make sense? Being afraid of the light.” …says the guy starting a nightshift job where he will be chased by dark shadowy figures similar to the shadow man alchemical symbol for Earth.

Champ’s Marxist rants about corporations are self-fulfilling. He chooses to place himself in the pressure cooker, and refuses to step away. He chooses to work two jobs at the same time. I wonder if he also saves money by having no home or bed to sleep in. His anti-capitalism rants offer no solution, no way out, nothing to change to, just bitterness at his alienation and disempowerment. Maybe if he quit his speed habit he could afford to quit one of his bottom of the ladder jobs and be less stressed. While Dud idealizes pastoral naturalism, Champ demonizes industrial capitalism. Even a future when Champ retires and is replaced by robots is dystopian. Dystopian literature is a particularly bad fantasy genre that misleads angsty teen mid-wits into believing they’re in-on-the-secret visionaries.

Ernie is declared Sovereign Protector, which Jung would say now makes Ernie a Senex.

Larry “goes down swinging” in the same spot outside the lodge of his childhood fist fight.

Dud is quickly moving up in the world. From a Fool, through the three Medieval ranks of Those who Work, and now to Those Who Fight. (Er, those who drive away quickly.)

Notice what the thieves are stealing? They’re cutting out copper electrical lines from the Orbis warehouse.

Alice’s motivational exhortations ("You're so weak! You suck at this!") are all dude bro shit talking, which takes a shift in thinking for some to understand how it works: She challenges you, saying who you are is not good enough. You overcome her by proving her wrong and doing better. It’s her quick way of filtering for winners, which are people willing to push themselves to improve.

Alice has displaced the Father's "Relax" pillow, throwing it onto the floor, and taken the Father's position on the couch herself while she challenges Liz to "improve her core". She can casually do this because Alice's name means "nobility".

"You moved the couch". The couch for Liz is the structure that she has placed herself, her father, and her brother into since childhood, giving her comfort. Liz has finally developed enough core (spirit) to shift her couch, and shift the relationships that the three have all been locked in even past death, breaking at last the parent's hold over them all. This breakthrough was not without risk, and the power released by the child rebelling against the parent and breaking these relationship constraints has injured and hospitalized her.

Liz has destroyed the image of her old self, transforming into someone new. While Dud's changes come from study and learning, Liz's changes result from intoxication. She ends with a cable tow tied around her neck. She may have stumbled on the carpet in the same place a second time as when she went to answer the door earlier ...or she may have stumbled on her father's Relax pillow that was thrown there by Alice. And did she really stumble there earlier, or just injure herself in the same place Dud is injured when she said his name out loud?

The scrolls will now become the McGuffin of the show? They're going to feel really dumb when they find out the Corpus Hermeticum is available on Kindle. What about all the first editions already sitting in the rediscovered library? Are they chopped liver?

Avery again gets 15 seconds of screen time, now making the character a Chekhov's gun. His name means "counsel". Real lodges issue membership cards that travelling members use to identify themselves as "members in good standing" to other lodges that also shows their rank within the organization. There used to be certain phrases and handshakes, but are only used ceremonially anymore because frankly once learned those don't expire when members get cheap and stop paying their dues. We're all now trained to look for a current membership card to enforce against travelling cheapskates that aren't current in dues with their home lodge drifting around satellite lodges to continue milking unpaid for membership benefits. You quickly learn to flash your current membership card first thing to the bartender when visiting any of your order's out of town lodge's taverns to show you're in good standing with your home lodge, and the first thing every bartender looks for is the current year on your card. The Grand Lodge officers are particularly diligent on flashing their membership cards because they want to discourage lax security and encourage enforcing keeping everyone up in their dues. "Is there room at the Inn?", if a real Lynx phrase used to identify a travelling Lynx member to another lodge when they don't have a current membership card, has got to be the lamest phrase ever, and this kind of easy to fake impostor credentialism is precisely why all the fraternities have moved on from using secret handshakes and password phrases to rewarding paying your annual dues with a membership card with the new year's graphics, card color background, and the newly paid for year prominently displayed ...that expires when the next lodge dues are up.

There is a theory that Lodge 49 itself is a character, and that its spirits speaks to the main characters through birds and weather. If so, the happy bird chirps and bright light when Avery crosses over the threshold and under the lintel means at least the Lodge spirits like him.

Kenneth Welsh has his own theory why his character Larry punched Dud.

The closing a cappella version of “Nature Boy” was sang by Tom Patterson's wife Susy Kane in their living room.

The conservative viewpoint of the humanities tends to be focussed on the Western Canon and the great books curriculum or Classical education. A common conservatives opinion is that a classical liberal arts education is critically important and valuable, but that modern Academia mired in revisionist theories and nihilism and leaving students adrift in a sea of electives taught by radicals has lost the thread and are now largely useless at best and more often than not are actively destructive.

A few books about the humanities, philosophy, art & education by conservatives and/or approvingly cited by conservatives.

• The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis
  
  
• The Lost Tools of Learning by Dorothy Sayers
  
  
• God and Man at Yale By William F. Buckley
  
  
• The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Santayana by Russel Kirke
  
  
• How Should we Then Live by Francis Schaeffer
  
  
• Modern Times By Paul Johnson.
  
  
• The Well Trained Mind by Susan Wise Bauer
  
  
• The Closing of the American Mind by Alan Bloom

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion: http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/


Diversity increases psychotic experiences: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc


Diversity increases social adversity: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc


A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust: http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities: https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health: https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you: http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n2005-1.pdf

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity increases social adversity.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.
https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.
http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n2005-1.pdf

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity increases social adversity. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust. http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities. https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health. https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational. http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you. http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTROCGb5qj8

• More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
  http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/
  
• Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
  http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
  
• Diversity increases social adversity.
  http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
  
• A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
  http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
  
• Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03
  
• Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03
  
• Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
  http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full
  
• Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.
  http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract
  
• Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.
  http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787
  
• Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full
  
• Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
  http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf
  
• Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
  http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
  
• Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.
  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6
  
• Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
  http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf
  
• Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.
  https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf
  
• Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
  https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors
  
• Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation.
  http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/
  
• Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.
  http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091
  
• It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.
  http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html
  
• Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.
  http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
  
• Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.
  http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
  
• States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.
  http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
  
• There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.
  http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n2005-1.pdf

Books I would add to balance this list out:

Anthropology

Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches by Marvin Harris. Unlike Germs, Guns, and Steel, this book is written by an actual anthropologist (sorry Mr. Diamond) and is a really easy read--it covers topics from the sacredness of cows to cargo cults. It's fun, too, as Harris is an entertaining and engaging writer, and it's a slim book.

Bonus Level Challenge Anthropology Read:

In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio by Phillipe Bourgois. This is another monograph written by an actual anthropologist. This book is more challenging subject matter, and I should put a big Trigger Warning on it for violence against women.

Economics

Wages, Price, and Profit by Karl Marx. It's a shame more people don't read Marx beyond the Manifesto, which he wrote fairly early on in his academic life. W,P and P is a preparatory work for Capital and outlines one of the arguments Marx makes in the much denser and more complete work that was to follow. It's short, and one of Marx's more approachable writings, dealing with something we are all familiar with: how much we get paid, and why.

Bonus Level Challenge Economics Read:

Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V. I. Lenin. This book contains much drier material, as Lenin draws upon common economic sources (I hope you like talking about tons of iron) to illustrate phenomenon like World War 1--which he saw as a competition of imperialist powers to redivide the Middle East and Africa--and even the Iraq Invasion that would come almost 100 years later.

Good, I think it's a good thing to do. People have been writing about suppression of free speech on American campuses for a while now.

Some young liberals might consider it great that conservative or otherwise controversial opinions are being silenced, but those of us who have been around for a while know that you yourself will eventually fall prey to the censorship you promote.

We could "un-sort" our way out of this by calling for a influx of citizens into the low-population states. California certainly can spare some. Of course, not all current Californians would be interested in that, However, there should still be more than enough to slowly bring the desirable changes and comforts into the ex-red states. Start with the Dakotas and Montana.

If you want to read an Ethnography i suggest In Search of Respect by Phillipe Bourgois. I read it after my first semester of Anthropology and i think its the book that made me continue on and do a major in Anthro.

It is pretty easy to get through and very interesting and relevant subject matter.

Full disclosure: I have not read any of these books. They are all in my Amazon Smile wish list :) Also, some are specifically for transgender issues, but some are geared toward the client or LGBTQ community. You can read them and integrate the information to support your practice.

• Gender Quest Workbook
  
  
• Handbook of Counseling and Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Clients
  
  
• Counseling LGBTI Clients
  
  
• Nurturing Queer Youth: Family Therapy Transformed
  
  
• Handbook of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity in Counseling and Psychotherapy
  
  
• Transgender Emergence: Therapeutic Guidelines for Working With Gender-Variant People and Their Families
  
  
• Trans Bodies, Trans Selves: A Resource for the Transgender Community

>And then there is this thread of comments where one person asks why an article about bisexual males is included in /r/feminisms.

You'll notice that that person got pretty heavily downvoted and that a whole bunch of heavily upvoted people in that thread politely took apart the idea that feminism shouldn't involve itself in the issues of LGBT men, including one of the moderators. I would not take that as a sign of being unwelcome.

>The closest that anybody came was when somebody pointed out how feminism is concerned with the expecations placed on men and how they effect women's inequality.

I think that's an important issue to consider because it works both ways. The perpetuation of women's inequality also hurts men. There is a reciprocal effect in oppressive systems that necessarily create difficult situations for those who are supposed to be privileged within it; thus the genesis of many male gendered social issues and traps.

Sometimes one has to consider issues discretely, other times you can only consider them as part of an interconnected system of social relations. What happens to women impacts men and vice versa to varying degrees for different issues.

>Am I wrong about this? Is feminism concerned with men's experiences as well?

These days there as many feminisms as there are feminists. A welter of different responses could easily accompany your question. My answer is yes. It absolutely is. Partially for the reasons I outlined above- the interconnected nature of humanity- and partially because the business of undoing the various straitjackets of hegemonic gender require everyone's participation.

Men's Lives is one of the leading gender studies texts on masculinity; it's an anthology.

Masculinities is also a critical text. What I meant by 'hegemonic gender' is elucidated on in its pages, and as the title implies, Professor Connell's thesis is that there are multiple ways of 'doing' masculinity in our world that vary by culture, race, class, age, and so on. Her contention is that each plays a critical role in maintaining the established norms of gender, while some are more subversive.

Manhood in America analyses the relatively recent history of how modern ideas of what it means to be a man (the ideas of your father that you rebelled against, likely) came into being.

On Amazon's "Related Books" pane you can find several others on this subject by men and women alike and it'll give you some insight into the multiplicity of progressive and feminist perspectives on manhood in Western culture.

I think part of the issue that so many of us, men and women, still suffer from is that we do tend to see everything oppositionally. Even I'm still getting out of that Manichean mindset. However, as you read and research you'll eventually come to see the at times delicate but synchronous waltz of men and women's relations within feminism. You should understand that women discussing their issues vis a vis men they've dealt with or been hurt by is not an attack against you as a man, but attempting to guilt them for speaking up will be problematic.

Rather, try to understand where they're coming from and why. The vast majority of feminist women do not hate, automatically mistrust, automatically dismiss, or automatically marginalise men. But discussing feminist issues requires frank discussion of people's (men and women's) experiences with gender, which often includes conflicts with masculinity and/or men, as that's just how power is often distributed and flowing.

The trick is to learn not to be threatened by it and go "but not all men are like that!" and you'll be fine. Because we all know that. :P

Conflict is omnipresent in feminisms. Conflict is what gave rise to feminisms rather than just a continued unitary feminism. Disagreements are common, writers and bloggers go back and forth with each other, academic conferences can be acrimonious, battles of inclusion are still being waged in various sectors... It wouldn't be feminism without the arguing, I'll tell you that!

You learn to embrace it, after a while.

What feminism en toto consists of is thousands of groups, great and small, millions upon millions of men, women, and those otherwise identified, disassociated women's and gender studies departments in universities worldwide, tonnes of academics, writers, intellectuals, slam poets, street activists, clinic escorts, journalists, editors, web mavens, bloggers, artists, musicians, and more who inform feminism with their work, research, reporting, passion, art, and every day experiences.

They're never all going to agree with one another. :)

Feminism isn't one thing controlled from a central location wherein we all have nice matching hot pink uniforms- awesome as those would be. It's very widespread and diffuse. There's room for quite a lot within it.

If you look, you'll find your place. ::smiles::

I recently enjoyed Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs, and Manda Marcotte's It's a Jungle Out There, both of which were fast and enjoyable reads. Neither was too deep. I've liked Naomi Wolf in the past. etc etc

From the "Required Reading List":

[The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students]
(https://www.amazon.com/Closing-American-Mind-Education-Impoverished/dp/1451683200/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1495471445&sr=8-1&keywords=Alan+bloom+closing+of) by Allan Bloom

***
And for those who don't have the time to read (and who does, these days):

• “ ... Americans cannot believe that any really intelligent and good person does not at bottom line share the Will Rogers Weltanschauung, ‘I never met a man I didn’t like.’ ”
  
  
• “ Of course, we are told, the healthy inner-directed person will really care for others. To which I can only respond: If you can believe that, you can believe anything. "
  
  
• “ The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside. ”
  
  
• “ I have seen young people, and older people too, who are good democratic liberals, lovers of peace and gentleness, struck dumb with admiration for individuals threatening or using the most terrible violence for the slightest and tawdriest of reasons. They have a sneaking suspicion that they are face to face with men of real commitment, which they themselves lack. And commitment, not truth, is believed to be what counts. ”
  
  ***
  
  Other thoughts from Bloom:
  
  
• “ Intellectuals committed to the revolution are the last to resign themselves to the facts. ”
  
  
• “ Civil societies are constituted by what they respect, by what men bow their heads before in reverence. When they no longer have anything before which they can bow, their world is near its end, and all the suppressed and lawless monsters within man reemerge. ”

You're welcome! It's not my YouTube but both speakers deal with these topics very well and both are real things that will factor in to his life. If you have any other questions I'm here.

Oh, it's very far off of course- but theirs not much on sex and disability. This book really helped once I got a copy at 17. Even as a nondisabled person this book may help you to know just because he has a disability; he doesn't have to be single forever.

https://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Guide-Sex-Disability-Disabilities/dp/B00FFBGURQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492808187&sr=8-1&keywords=the+ultimate+guide+to+sex+and+disability

For my Intro to Cultural Anthropology class last semester we read an ethnography called "In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in the Barrio" by Philippe Bourgois. It was an interesting read, very captivating and real. I really liked it.

Here’s some books:

• 9 books

-most of these can be found in video form on YouTube

• understanding power

• manufacturing consent kindle (couldn’t find it as a pdf)

Chomsky is a great read, he also has some great lectures on YouTube. The reason that only a tiny minority knows him is because of his lack of appearance in mainstream media (in my opinion). He summarizes it greatly in this video:

Noam Chomsky- concision

OP, buy the following book, and get wise on the specifics of the arguments presented. We all have a good idea why SJW Fundamentalism is bad, but knowing how to present those arguments in a clear, cogent way should go a long way to persuading your peers.

http://www.amazon.com/Kindly-Inquisitors-Attacks-Free-Thought/dp/0226705765

Good luck, and godspeed.

Seriously you ask for my opinion and that's the reply I get? And I thought we were friends. I also find you attitudes on the achievement gap to be quaint. Here is a study by a black sociologist on the reasons black students perform poorly in a rich middle class school district. His conclussion...It isn't the teachers.

http://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/rich-black-flunking/Content?oid=1070459

Here is another perspective from a white teacher who chose to teach in a primarily black school district. I am sure the blame for the achievement gap rest on his shoulders as well.

http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2009/06/white-teacher-speaks-out-what-is-it.html

Sorry for the late reply, I only now stumbled upon your question.

Here are some more books that I haven't seen mentioned. All of them are non-fiction, all of the authors have published more on the topic.

• "Testo Junkie" by Beatriz Preciado A first-hand account of Preciado's experimentation with testosterone, what she refers to as "gender hacking".
  
• "In A Queer Time and Place" by Judith/Jack Halberstam Just one example of probably one of the foremost academics concerning trans* issues.
  
• "Whipping Girl" by Julia Serano Serano's description of her understanding of her own trans-identity. Beautifully meshed into the current theoretical discourse.
  
• "Transgender Warriors" by Leslie Feinberg Several accounts of people apparently violating established gender norms and the attempt to fit them into a narrative of gender rebellion.
  
  Hope some of that sparks your interest.

I highly recommend The Way of Men by Jack Donovan. One of the best books of this sort.

Masculinity Studies is a huge field in Gender Studies, there are shelves and shelves full of books about masculinity. This book sounds like a good starting place: http://www.amazon.de/Masculinities-R-W-Connell/dp/0520246985/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414234224&sr=8-1&keywords=masculinity

Porter is so convincing to many gamers/nerds, I believe, because nerds traditionally did not conform with at least some aspects of the "man box," which just makes this rabid anti-feminism and misogyny even harder to stomach for me.

Yup, got some good ones for you:

Three Years of Hate: The Very Best of In Mala Fide: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Years-Hate-Very-ebook/dp/B00AWJVZXK

The Way of Men by Jack Donovan: http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-of-Men-ebook/dp/B007O0Y1ZE/

Here a good review of the Donovan: http://uncouthreflections.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/jack-donovans-the-way-of-men/

All mass media has been biased since it's inception. Partisan bias is one single facet of the biases of mass media and shouldn't be taken as the only one. As per Chomsky:

1. Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation of the Mass Media. Mainstream media is essentially owned by corporations and the government, because those are the very agents who fund them. Any favourable studies, studies or information that the government or corporations want the public to know (or don’t want them to know) either ends up being aired or buried as a result.
   
   
2. Advertising License to do Business. Mass media isn’t interested in attracting viewers to educate them, but rather to sell them on something. They’re more interested in engaging an audience with higher buying power than actually making a difference through education and information.
   
   
3. Sourcing Mass-Media News. Whatever is aired on mass media needs to be 100% credible, meaning it’s viewers need to completely trust what’s being aired, without the need of them using their critical thinking skills. Since the majority of the public trusts the government and mass corporations, AKA the propaganda machines, most of the “news worthy” content comes from them.
   
   
4. Flak and the Enforcers. “Flak” refers to negative responses to a media statement or program aired on the network. Perhaps the most influential producers of flak are corporations and the government. Corporations have created large scale organizations whose sole purpose is to produce flak. The government is also a large producer of flak, as it constantly corrects or threatens the media based on their interests.
   
   
5. Anticommunism as a Control Mechanism. Everything at home seems to be a lesser evil if there’s something on the news that seems much worse (fake terrorist attacks, false enemies, and/or “radical” states). Anything that sounds too left can also be dismissed if it sounds too much like “communism.” By creating an extremely anti-communist state, the elite will never have to worry about losing control over society because their wealth and power remains safe and sound.
   
   A great animated version of this is available here.

In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, by Philipe Bourgeois, is an ethnography of street-level drug dealers written by an anthropologist. It's very readable for an academic analysis.

Makes Me Wanna Holler, by Nathan McCall, is an autobiography written by a gang-member-turned-journalist. It offers an unapologetic look at his experiences.

Public Enemies, by Bryan Burroughs, doesn't focus on the personal experiences and perspectives of gang members in the same ways. But it offers an interesting account of some of the big-name gangs and gang members of the 1930s and the FBI response.

Not a well known book outside of the UK I think but brilliantly simple and impactful. Has been a cornerstone in my view of media along with Manufacturing Consent and Propaganda. Once you've gone through those you'll probably be more inclined to focus on your own life.

In no specific order: The Dictator's Handbook: presents a realist perspective on international and intra-national politics, specifically it presents a real-world analysis of politics through the lens of Selectorate Theory.

Something from Chomsky, I'd say Manufacturing Consent or Understanding Power or both. Chomsky has written about 40 books so it's impossible to keep up with him and you may end up disagreeing on substantial points, but I think he's probably the most important to read because he situates his political analysis outside the invisible constraints of American political culture, and American political culture tends to be naive about the goals and methods of government and other institutions.

Watch this CGP Grey video and consider how it applies to political parties, political discourse, and political activism. Afterwards you should either read the meme wikipedia page or Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene.

Looking back I notice all my recommendations circle around studying politics itself as a phenomena, I don't know if that's what you meant but you might enjoy it. If you're more wondering which political stances you should take, decide that by which policies have empirical evidence of working and base your decisions on how robust you think the evidence is.

There's an interesting book about this, The Big Sort by Bill Bishop. It looks at how people have moved to areas that align more with their politics, consciously or unconsciously, over the past 50 years. Worth a read if you like this sort of thing.

You're just spamming the sub now with this.
Repeating the same things and not advancing your position.

Nor are you responding to my questions so that we can have a rational discussion by establishing what is "racism and privilege" exactly and how it pertains to the city.

Because right now it's all this fuzzy notion that makes excuses far too easy. Talking to you really does remind me of a good will hunting secene. I even brought up Howard Zin for cryin out loud.

Anyway, Perhaps something like John Ogbu's study "Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement" would be of benefit here.

Otherwise this is isn't going anywhere and it's clear that no amount of reasoning is going to change whatever some militant BLM mantra crept into your mind.

If you want a history that focuses on the U.S., Susan Stryker's book Transgender History is good.

If you want a world history, there isn't really one single book that covers specifically transgender history in the whole world. The best one is Leslie Feinberg's Transgender Warriors, though it has some problems.

1. Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins
   
   
2. A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn
   
   
3. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of Mass Media by Edward Herman & Noam Chomsky
   
   
4. Toxic Sludge is Good For You: Lies and the Public Relations Industry by John Stauber

Believe it or not, I actually have read that piece. These are issues I am very passionate about and follow closely. Free speech is still free speech and attempts to shut it down are totalitarian. What is considered 'hateful' has been expanding at an alarming rate and fewer and fewer views are considered acceptable. This is an incredibly dangerous trend.

I want to beg you to read: https://www.amazon.com/Closing-American-Mind-Education-Impoverished/dp/1451683200

I wish there was an article length synopsis, there might be one out there. I'm NOT saying you have to agree with it, we can agree to disagree but it's just another perspective.

Important edit

http://www.amazon.com/Search-Respect-Structural-Analysis-Sciences/dp/0521017114/ref=la_B001IGHNIW_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368699663&sr=1-1 this is a VERY intresting book about an anthropologist who studied crack dealers, its pretty cool.

You’re welcome. I also want to share this book with you: Kindly Inquisitors.

You really, honestly should. Especially if you take your interest in sociology seriously. It would be like not reading The Bell Curve (which a bunch of people disagree with)

https://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X/

Since r/atheism is big on evidence, proof, stats, numbers, science, facts, instead of just shooting someone down for pointing out an inconvenient truth, I'm sure that standard of objectivity means nobody will mind it being pointed out that this one record is quite unlikely to change the fact that Religious people give more (money AND time) to charities and humanitarian aid than the non-religious.

Are you assuming that there haven't been large demographic shifts in the past 20-30 years where the American populace have sorted themselves along common areas of culture? Journalists and political science PhDs write books about this sort of thing (for example: https://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-America/dp/0547237723).

The people of the Northern Rocky Mountain states are substantively different from Californians, with different value sets, economic ideas, etc. How do you guarantee that decisions that affect those states aren't afflicted with a California flavor that is distasteful to those non-Californians?

I encourage everyone to read this book. Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky he explains detail about how the media is changing everything.

> forcing people into echo chambers of conformity

Nah man they do that on their own really really well. For an investigation of this phenomenon at scale in the real world, check out Bill Bishop's The Big Sort.

> excessive moderation

Funny, the least echo-chamber-ey subs I know of are some of the most heavily moderated. See /r/NeutralPolitics or /r/PoliticalDiscussion.

The Way of Men by Jack Donovan is a great place to start.

Here is a video introduction.

I don't believe it would bother me. You know what you can do, how to move yourself around etc. As long as you're savvy enough to get creative with body positioning, things would be great.

I have non-visible disabilities, including two muscular skeletal conditions and chronic pain. My back is different and certain things are not possible for me. I'm still learning to accept this, so I picked up this book at my local sex shop. It's called "The Ultimate Guide to Sex and Disability". https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00FFBGURQ/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1495272055&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=the+ultimate+guide+to+sex+and+disability&dpPl=1&dpID=41quZKrWieL&ref=plSrch
It's candid, thoughtful, and is written by people who are and/or work with people with disabilities. There is indeed a section about wheelchairs and some tips on positioning and ergonomics. Perhaps you know these tips already, but I thought I would throw it out there!

For ancient stuff, Leslie Feinberg's book Transgender Warriors is a place to start. It's not really academically rigorous, but a good introduction to gender-variant people and stories from ancient history to today.

Male 23 last year of university graduating in a Computer Engineering degree

http://www.amazon.com/How-Be-Man-Corey-Wayne/dp/1411673360
Its basically a cross between a basic book like "Bang" and "The way of men". PUA crossed with some more serious/relevant messages about masculinity and purusing goals
http://www.amazon.com/Way-Men-Jack-Donovan/dp/0985452307

I have been in only one serious LTR. Girl broke my heart. I spent 1 year without touching a woman and wallowing in my own pity because the LTR cheated. I had a serious health issue that kept my bedridden for a long time. Other than that, I am just getting started with TRP and realizing my value in the sexual marketplace. So in short; fairly inexperienced. Just getting started. Thats why I am posting this topic

Well I guess that means I should just keep spinning plates till I get someone valuable. And if not, fuck marraige

TIL /u/bawkedybawk is the only other person in the sub wishing for this book! One day I will read it... seems almost a rite of passage lol.

Awesome article.

For more, here's a decent documentary based on Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent:

>It's basically an institutional analysis of the major media, what we call a propaganda model[...] they do this in all sorts of ways: by selection of topics, by distribution of concerns, by emphasis and framing of issues, by filtering of information, by bounding of debate within certain limits. They determine, they select, they shape, they control, they restrict -- in order to serve the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society.

That’s not surprising. Propaganda works. There’s a book you might want to check out called Manufacturing Consent that explains why the media pushes certain ideas even if those ideas are lies. The book was written in the 80s but it’s just as true today as it was then.

https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media-ebook/dp/B0055PJ4R0

Not all of these are ML and not all of them are that recent, but here's some good Marxist books written by women & trans comrades:

• Women, Race & Class by Angela Y. Davis
  
• Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federici
  
• Marxism and the Oppression of Women: Toward a Unitary Theory by Lise Vogel
  
• Transgender Warriors by Leslie Feinberg

Then you have a weird fetish for everything Trump - repeat a lie long enough its the Truth, all publicity is good publicity ! https://www.amazon.co.uk/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0099533111

That fear may be overblown but this is a thing that some people are doing-- making certain strong women from history who were uncomfortable with gender roles or wore men's clothing into trans men.

Here's a New Yorker piece suggesting Carson McCullers was really a trans man for no good reason: http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/white-writer/amp

Here's a book about "transgender warriors" that includes Joan of Arc: https://www.amazon.ca/Transgender-Warriors-Making-History-Dennis/dp/0807079413

1. The Way Of Men.
   This book changed my life. Im sure anyone on this sub will recognize themselves and the situations Donovan writes about.
   
   
2. Anything by Robert Greene.
   How to become powerful, seductive and master yourself.
   
   
3. Meditations.
   This book helped me overcome my fear of death, which made me give less fucks. Because in the end, nothing matters.
   
   I dont have anymore than that at the moment, but i would suggest reading biographies of great men. Right now im reading Seven Pillars Of Wisdom, T. E. Lawrence(of Arabia)s first hand account of the Arab uprising during the First World War

https://www.amazon.com/Transgender-History-Studies-Susan-Stryker/dp/158005224X
Transgender History (Seal Studies) (9781580052245): Susan ...

Used as the definitive Text at College and Universities.

https://www.amazon.com/Transgender-Studies-Reader-1/dp/041594709X
The Transgender Studies Reader (Volume 1 ... - Amazon.com
Also used in college Gender Studies courses.

https://www.amazon.com/Transgender-Warriors-Making-History-Dennis/dp/0807079413
Transgender Warriors : Making History from Joan ... - Amazon.com

I don't know how they labeled themselves, but it was definitely under the Tran Umbrella.

> Can't stand his self righteous attitude.

As I said, it's a standard attitude among the wannabe alpha demographic. I don't generally read the manosphere on a regular basis, but occasionally one of them will say something vaguely interesting or intelligent. When they do, I just try to filter out the grunting and other bullshit, and get the actual information that they are offering.

As I also said in another topic, this sort of thing is pretty much a pure reaction to feminism. It's guys feeling threatened by women mobilising and becoming politically powerful, and thinking that they need a "me-too," movement in order to counter it. As a result, they have come up with a distorted Flanderisation of real masculinity to the same extent that feminism has done, where femininity is concerned. We've seen near-incoherent, ridiculous travesties like the one written by this idiot, for example.

I would stay with them and see how you feel. Also it REALLY helps to learn as much as you can about the trans experience and trans issues.

http://www.youtube.com/user/tsdollhouse/

reddit.com/r/transgender

http://www.amazon.com/Trans-Bodies-Selves-Transgender-Community/dp/0199325359

Oh, you made up your own flavor of perennialism? You aren't the only one. It's very popular in the New Age crowd. Aquarius has a lot to answer for. Or hippies. Or Aquarius hippies.

> anyone who practices meditation practices zen.

Zen Masters don't teach this. So it isn't your opinion, just like it isn't your "opinion" that Abraham Lincoln said he was from the planet Grog and he had a wife there who was a lovely shade of cheese.

What you really have is a misrepresentation of Mumon. Which you flog, apparently, to validate your religious Perennialism.

I mean seriously man, come on. You can't go around telling people Abraham Lincoln said he was from Grog. That's BS. You know that. So why do you BS people about Zen?

There has got to be some area of your life in which you practice some intellectual integrity. Put yourself in my shoes. What if I showed up in your place of business and told people something about the field you studied for your job that was total BS that I made up?

I mean you don't have to go to school and get a degree in Zen, but read a book before you make up stuff and pretend Mumon said it.

If it isn't okay to do it about Abraham Lincoln, it's not okay to do it about Mumon or anybody else in his family, the family to which the name "Zen" refers.

.

I will add for those watching at home that I said Dogen's zazen was prayer-meditation. Note that this classification isn't as crazy cakes as some have suggested, at least to perennialists.

Wait, does that kind of evidence bolster my argument or not?

n/m.

Yeah really. Like it or not, he is pretty much correct.

For instance, check out this 30-year sociology study on academic habits.

Speaking of redpill reading, I feel the need to shout out Jack Donovan here. Two of his books, "The Way of Men" and "Becoming a Barbarian" have been absolutely revolutionary for me. These are dangerous books, full of dangerous ideas. The former one, in particular, is an excellent primer in masculine virtue. I bet I've given half a dozen copies away. Read them, learn them, commit them to memory. Also recommended: "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius and "Letters from a Stoic" by the one and only Seneca.

Manufacturing consent is as relevant as ever.

Sadly, most journalists seem to read it and think it's a text on best practices.

Trans Bodies, Trans Selves is pretty much an encyclopedia of trans.

In Search of Respect if you’re into anthropology at all

>This book was written in 2006, halfway through George W. Bush’s second term as president.

"Studies" like this have pre-determined conclusions.

George W. Bush wasn't conservative on issues that you should be conservative on, anyway. His tax cuts should've coincided with spending cuts. He expanded Medicare and sent out stimulus checks. He engaged in nation building. He was a progressive president - that's why he was a terrible president like Obama. Progressive presidents tend to be authoritarian. For example, FDR confiscated gold and re-valued it. FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court to force through his unconstitutional policies. Woodrow Wilson said he wouldn't take us into war but then did. LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam with no declaration of war. Nixon used a unilateral Executive Order to abandon Bretton-Woods.

Here's a quote from Amazon's editorial review of the book revenantae referenced:
Approximately three-quarters of Americans give their time and money to various charities, churches, and causes; the other quarter of the population does not. Why has America split into two nations: givers and non-givers? Arthur Brooks, a top scholar of economics and public policy, has spent years researching this trend, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Really Cares, he demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes.

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216

Sure! Here’s 3 really good ones:

The Machinery of Freedom

Anatomy of the State

The Problem of Political Authority

Trans bodies trans selves is a pretty good resource for trans folk and allies alike. There is a lot in there and can be a bit dense but it's really informative. https://www.amazon.com/Trans-Bodies-Selves-Transgender-Community/dp/0199325359

>Actually, the fact that these conservatives were invited in the first place would suggest the opposite about academia.

Usually by much maligned campus groups, like The Federalist Society, College Republicans, and other organizations which liberals bunch their panties over. (Asuza's President made the call, among the usual cacophony of humanities student protest.)

I could cite entire books, like Allan Bloom's Closing of The American Mind or Bruce Bawer's The Victims' Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind, both of which convincingly demonstrate the top-down liberal "worldview" (with blinders) of universities.

Look at the response toward Lawrence Summers at Harvard for suggesting cognitive differences between men and women are a partial source of women's lack of representation at the elite-level of STEM fields.

Or, for polling numbers:

>College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds

>By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

Sure, susans.org is a huge forum with allies and partners and trans people of all stripes.

This website is part of the Silvia Rivera project who is a rather well known leader in the community, since Stonewall, who died of cancer.
https://srlp.org/resources/trans-101/

There’s tons of trans vloggers you can go to. Most but not all have a 101 video, and/or talk about their experiences being trans. Here’s a list:
https://blog.feedspot.com/transgender_youtube_channels/

There’s a number of authors you may look into as well, here’s some books:
https://www.amazon.com/Whipping-Girl-Transsexual-Scapegoating-Femininity/dp/1580056229
https://www.amazon.com/Redefining-Realness-Path-Womanhood-Identity/dp/1476709130/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543615079&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=janet+mock&dpPl=1&dpID=5179e6QMxzL&ref=plSrch
https://www.amazon.com/Surpassing-Certainty-What-Twenties-Taught/dp/1501145797/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1543615079&sr=8-2&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=janet+mock&dpPl=1&dpID=511ZZslW8TL&ref=plSrch
https://www.amazon.com/Transgender-History-second-Todays-Revolution/dp/158005689X/ref=pd_aw_sbs_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=158005689X&pd_rd_r=0ddc8e87-f4eb-11e8-8ad5-2179f688e965&pd_rd_w=dZYLz&pd_rd_wg=l40fZ&pf_rd_i=mobile-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=926ebe02-3236-40c6-ac63-01ad178f498a&pf_rd_r=7XK0K0TEGTZS8SNQ9YMP&pf_rd_s=mobile-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=7XK0K0TEGTZS8SNQ9YMP
https://www.amazon.com/Trans-Bodies-Selves-Transgender-Community/dp/0199325359/ref=pd_aw_sim_14_of_15?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0199325359&pd_rd_r=0ddc8e87-f4eb-11e8-8ad5-2179f688e965&pd_rd_w=mqDub&pd_rd_wg=l40fZ&pf_rd_i=mobile-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=57b46099-d750-4d74-83ee-63ad64b310a4&pf_rd_r=7XK0K0TEGTZS8SNQ9YMP&pf_rd_s=mobile-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=7T7APJ7MA85RWVJHJW5T
https://www.amazon.com/Shes-Not-There-Life-Genders/dp/0385346972/ref=pd_aw_sim_14_of_17?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0385346972&pd_rd_r=0ddc8e87-f4eb-11e8-8ad5-2179f688e965&pd_rd_w=mqDub&pd_rd_wg=l40fZ&pf_rd_i=mobile-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=57b46099-d750-4d74-83ee-63ad64b310a4&pf_rd_r=7XK0K0TEGTZS8SNQ9YMP&pf_rd_s=mobile-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=BNNAHM1QDG52M4D25XX2
https://www.amazon.com/Gender-Outlaw-Men-Women-Rest/dp/1101973242/ref=pd_aw_sim_14_of_20?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1101973242&pd_rd_r=0ddc8e87-f4eb-11e8-8ad5-2179f688e965&pd_rd_w=mqDub&pd_rd_wg=l40fZ&pf_rd_i=mobile-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=57b46099-d750-4d74-83ee-63ad64b310a4&pf_rd_r=7XK0K0TEGTZS8SNQ9YMP&pf_rd_s=mobile-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=WC57YE4ZTSS8XPR20CRY

In Search of Respect is a good way to understand how this happens. An anthropologist goes to East Harlem to study crack dealers in the 90's.

A demographic shift taking place nationwide. This book puts it in a good context.

It has been noted that voluntary immigrants (whites, asians) do far better than most involuntry immigrants (most african americans, native americans).

here is my compilation. rate pls:

Statistics show how violent crimes have skyrocketed in Sweden because of mass immigration.

In the year 1950: 190 robberies. [1]

In the year 2011: 9700 robberies. [2]

In the year 1975: 421 rapes. [3]

In the year 2014: 6294 rapes. [4]

In the year 1993 immigrants/foreigners committed 56% of all rapes in Sweden. At the time immigrants made up around 12% of Swedens population. Source: Von Hofer, Sarnecki & Tham (1996)

Immigrants from North African countries over-representation when it comes to rape is 2300% (Compared to Swedish males, a north african immigrant is 23 times more likely to commit a rape) Source: BRÅ Report (1996).

Sources for the crime statistics above:

[1]: Brott och straff i Sverige: Historisk kriminalstatistik 1750–2005. Hanns Von Hofer.

[2]: Brottsförebyggande rådets rapport: Brottsutvecklingen i Sverige år 2008-2011.

[3] and [4]: https://www.bra.se/download/18.22a7170813a0d141d21800052648/05+Sexualbrott.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whites will be a minority in their country before the end of this century.

White Britons may be a minority by 2066. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10032296/White-Britons-will-be-minority-by-2066-says-professor.html

Native Irish projected to become a minority in Ireland by 2050. http://nonalignedmedia.com/2016/02/demographic-replacement-native-irish-projected-to-become-minorities-in-ireland-by-2050/

Germany will have a nonwhite majority in one generation. http://newobserveronline.com/germany-nonwhites-majority-in-one-generation/

Whites in America will be a minority a decade sooner than thought earlier.http://whitegenocideproject.com/us-latest-census-predicts-whites-minority-a-decade-earlier-than-expected/

Native Swedish will be a minority by 2050. http://whitegenocideproject.com/white-genocide-swedish-minority-by-2050/

Native Danes will be a minority by the turn of this century. http://www.b.dk/viden/danskere-bliver-en-minoritet-i-danmark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race mixing is unhealthy.

Mixed race people are more likely to have psychological problems than single race people. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/

Mixed race people are completely screwed for transplantations. http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/match4lara-mixed-race-marrow-search-thats-going-viral/?_r=0

Mixed race people are more likely to be obese. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5495312_The_Prevalence_of_Obesity_in_Ethnic_Admixture_Adults

Mixed race are more likely to die at birth. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2867623/?report=classic

Race mixing only benefits the inferior race. Black-White mixed have a higher IQ than Blacks, but lower IQ than Whites. http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2016/03/race-and-iq-mixed-populations.html

Racial admixture leads to less healthy human beings overall. https://www.reddit.com/r/HBD/comments/4g3z11/racial_admixture_leads_to_less_healthy_human/

Alon Ziv and his book have been completely debunked. https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/alon_ziv_on_race_mixing/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiculturalism is impractical.

Examples of multiculturalism not working: Kosovo, Lebanon, Palestine, Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Haiti, Nagorno-Karabakh, Haiti, Sudan, Belgium.

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity increases social adversity. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust. http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities. https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health. https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational. http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you. http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar. http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n%202005-1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nazis had incredibly high IQ and where the intellectual elite of the time.

proof:
https://www.quora.com/How-accurate-were-the-IQ-scores-of-the-high-ranking-Third-Reich-officials-tried-at-Nuremberg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Intelligence_tests_and_psychiatric_assessments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump voters are more intelligent than other Republicans.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-better-educated-republican-voters-may-come-as-a-surprise-2016-03-11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women with high partner counts are more likely to have problems in marriage and being unhappy/depressed.
http://i.imgur.com/LUiiIvo.jpg
Sources: CDC National Center of Health Statistics, National Survey of Family Growth, 1995 onwards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angela merkel was a communist and secretary of propaganda for the communist youth.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328536/Angela-Merkel-Communist-links-new-image-uniform-released.html

A fairly popular book was written on this very subject back in 2009. The Big Sort

Evidence shows the differences in academic aptitudes among races are so small as to be negligible. The same is true about gender where females tend to be very slightly better at some tasks on average ... but who cares. It's negligible on average and says nothing about any individual.

The problems with inner city schools that you mention are primarily socio-economic and also cultural (see Shaker Heights: https://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X ), not genetic.

I think you are arguing that teachers should be evaluated based on growth rather than proficiency.

For anyone interested, I suggest reading Alan Bloom's seminal work Closing of the American Mind which gives one explanation of how we ended up here (and it was published in the mid-80s)

Just read ethnographies on a subject or group that interests you.

One of my favorites in college was [In Search of Respect(]http://www.amazon.com/Search-Respect-Structural-Analysis-Sciences/dp/0521017114). Philippe Bourgeois was studying crack dealers in El Barrio (a mostly Hispanic are of New York City also called Spanish Harlem). It's a very good ethnography because it is objective, showing how social capital and other phenomena play a role in keeping the crack dealers from "going legit," yet it does not make apologies for the sometimes obscene things they do to other human beings.

Thunder Rides a Black Horse is about a traditional Mescalero coming of age ceremony for women.

Life and Death on Mt Everest is an intimate look at the experienced Sherpas who aid mountain climbers as they tackle the world's tallest mountain.

There are ethnographies all over the place on just about every culture you could ask for. Just do a google search on something that interests you and use the keyword "ethnography" in your search. You're bound to come up with something.

Amazon link to the printed studies and other of his works.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=John+Ogobu&x=10&y=22

http://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1289444666&sr=8-1-spell

Black American Students in An Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement (Sociocultural, Political, and Historical Studies in Education)

http://www.amazon.com/Minority-Education-Caste-Cross-Cultural-Perspective/dp/0125242506/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1289444666&sr=8-2-spell

Minority Education and Caste: The American System in Cross-Cultural Perspective (A Carnegie Council on Children Monograph)

http://www.amazon.com/Next-Generation-Ethnography-Neighbourhood-anthropology/dp/0127855890/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1289444666&sr=8-3-spell

Next Generation: Ethnography of Education in an Urban Neighbourhood (Studies in anthropology)

If conservatives had their way, the federal budget would be smaller. Certain large federal bureaucracies would be shut down and dismantled. There would be no Obamacare and no Dodd Frank.

What we have right now is not conservative rule, it's a stalemate. Given the polarization in society at large, the stalemate is a product of politicians on both sides of the aisle representing their constituents as best they can.

The problem isn't Congress; it's the constituents. A radical polarization has occurred in American society over the past few decades. This book offers one possible explanation. Unless we citizens can bridge the gaps in society, we should not expect Congress to do it for us.

Edit: I shouldn't say the budget would be smaller under conservatives. They certainly didn't do much to shrink it in the Bush years.

Great list! Regarding the question of violence, I would add How Nonviolence Protects the State and Pacifism as Pathology because your list seems a slightly one-sided.